January 23 & 25, 2006
Meeting Minutes
_______________________________________________________________________
January 23, 2006 – 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Jennings, Haase, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan
Staff present: Stogsdill, Day, Patterson, Miller, and Leininger
_______________________________________________________________________
MINUTES
Ermeling requested public clarification on Item No. 15 – Bauer Farm, that the project no longer be called New Urbanism and that Mr. Treanor had conceded that the proposal was not a pure New Urbanist project, but a hybrid plan that included many New Urbanist design elements.
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Krebs to approve the December 2005 minutes as revised.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
CDC: The committee continues to meet every other week and is reviewing the Smart Code. Presentations have been made to various community groups.
PARKS: The committee met again to review the comments provided by the City and County Commissions on the Parks Chapter and the revised document is on the agenda this month.
T2030: The committee met to continue work on the long-range transportation plan update. The group anticipated completion in 2007 and was discussing other community interests that should be involved in the process.
CPC: The committee has asked for direction from the City Commission on how to proceed with the Southeast Area Plan revisions in light of mixed direction received from the City and County Commissions.
PCMM: The Commission received a presentation on the North Lawrence Drainage Study.
ITEM 2 - Revised Final Development Plan for Canyon Court Apartments
· Letter from Deborah Dillon, president of the Joseph Drive Neighborhood Association, expressing concern with the lack of a landscaping barrier between the Planned Commercial Development and the existing single family residence. The letter also explained the Neighborhood Association’s stance on the basketball court and their views of the recommendations in the Staff Report.
· Memo from Staff responding to the concerns expressed in the Joseph Drive Neighborhood Association letters.
ITEM 3 - Final Plat for Cypress Park Addition; 1801 Learnard Avenue
· E-mail from Patricia Sinclair, neighboring property owner, requesting that the Planning Commission deny the Final Plat. The request is supported by these reasons: it does not comply with City zoning requirements, and was brought to this point by erroneous procedures in violation of the city code and/or Kansas Statutes.
ITEM 6B - Rezoning from I-1 & A to M-1; 17.889 Acres; South of K-10 Highway Between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road
· Revised page 1 of Staff Report with revised Staff recommendation to correct a typographical error.
ITEM 8 - Rezoning RM-3 to RM-1; 2.19Acres; 1515 W 7th Street
· Letter from Peter Whitenight, owner of subject property, stating his preference for the RM-2 zoning classification over the proposed RM-1 classification.
ITEM 9 - Hierarchy of Plans
· Letter from the League of Women Voters of Lawrence-Douglas County suggesting revised language to clarify the separate purpose and function of each of the plans.
ITEM 13 - Preliminary Development Plan for Northgate Commercial;
· Staff Report for the PDP for Northgate Commercial with staff recommendation.
· Memo to Planning Staff describing the proposed development and providing photos of the area.
MISC ITEM 1 - Final Development Plan for Delaware Commons Co-Housing Project;
· Memo from Planning Staff recommending approval of a 6 month extension. Applicant’s letter requesting an extension is included.
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUESTS
· Commissioner Lawson indicated he would abstain from Item No. 11.
· Items 2, 3, and 4 were pulled from the Consent Agenda by the Commission.
· The remainder of the Consent Agenda was approved unanimously as presented.
· Commissioner Burress suggested that the Commission take public testimony on non-public hearing items (that involve revisions) based on the premise that if the changes proposed would have been made in advance, the neighborhood would have had an opportunity to comment at the public hearing stage. [comment related to Item No. 2].
PC minutes 01/23/06
ITEM NO. 1: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR FAIRFIELD FARMS MULTI-FAMILY; SOUTHWEST CORNER OF K-10 HIGHWAY & O’CONNELL ROAD (SLD)
FDP-08-13-05: Final Development Plan for Fairfield Farms Multi-Family. This proposed multiple-family residential development contains approximately 17.3457 acres and proposes construction of 55 townhouses and 205 apartments. The property is generally described as being located at the southwest corner of K-10 Highway and O’Connell Road. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, LLC, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Krebs, to approve the Final Development Plan for Fairfield Farms Multi-family based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
2. Provision of an addressing scheme with the Final Development Plan to be recorded.
3. Execution of a site plan performance agreement by the owners.
4. Provision of a photometric plan prior to release of the Final Development Plan for issuance of a building permit.
5. Submission and approval of public improvement plans to Public Works Department and including language that states improvements shall be installed and acceptance by the City before release of the Final Development Plan for issuance of building permits
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC minutes
01/23/06 & 01/25/06
ITEM NO. 2: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CANYON COURT APARTMENTS; 700 COMET LANE (SLD)
FDP-11-17-05: Revised Final Development Plan for Canyon Court Apartments. The property is generally described as being located at 700 Comet Lane. The revised plan proposes the addition of a basketball court. Submitted by Robert Green for First Management, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the item, a revised final development plan to show the location of a basketball court added earlier in the year. She noted that this application was a result of a zoning violation and that the applicant was revising the plan for compliance.
APPLICANT PRESENTATON
Robert Green, representative for the applicant was available to answer questions.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Julia Rombough, Joseph Drive Neighborhood Association and area resident, 705 Joseph Drive, noted that calls to the Lawrence Police were required to gain compliance. Concerns expressed including the provision of a 6’ wood fence that would leave the existing tree line intact. Provision of landscaping and addressing the current drainage problems. Landscape needed to be updated and should be a public review item. A cutoff time for play should remain set at 9:00 P.M. and there should be some documentation to declare a nuisance and result in the removal of the basketball court.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that a note to be added should use the nuisance ordinance language to set definite limits that the property can be judged against.
Commissioner Burress stated that he did not support the use of private property for “public access” in response to comments that neighborhood children used the court.
Vice Chair Krebs asked for clarification of what was deemed to be excessive noise?
Ms. Stogsdill responded that a good reference to the disorderly house ordinance could be used to quantify that threshold.
Commissioner Jennings referred to the Holcom facility and noted a need to control lighting as an effective means to control activity. (Courts will not be used if they are not lighted.)
Chairman Riordan concurred with that statement.
Debra Dillon stated she supported these conditions if enforced and noted that late night play is by the residents.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Ermeling, to approve the revised Final Development Plan for Canyon Court Apartments based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Revision of the Final Development Plan to include the following:
a. Provision of a 6’ wood fence along the east property line [in a location to leave the existing tree line intact] a minimum of 180’ from the south property line;
b. Addition of 3 evergreen trees (6’ to 8’ height) at the east end of the court within the 35’ peripheral setback and a second row of evergreen vegetation at the end of the east side of the basketball court per the approval of the City Parks Department;
c. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to update the landscape plan per Staff Approval;
d. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to note that rules regarding use of the basketball court shall be posted on site and posting of rules for use of the court and notice that play shall cease not later than 9:00 P.M.
e. Provision of a note that states the City may require the removal of the basketball goals and/or the return of the court to turf in the development plan, if Neighborhood Resources finds nuisance complaints as per the nuisance ordinance (ord. 7962) cannot be resolved.
f. Building lighting shall be revised to provide shields to cut-off lighting to the basketball court
g. Revising grading to repair run-off around newly constructed basketball court.
2. Execution of a site plan performance agreement.
Motion carried with a vote of 8-1
PC minutes 01/23/06
ITEM NO. 3: FINAL PLAT FOR CYPRESS PARK ADDITION; 1801 LEARNARD AVENUE (PGP)
PF-11-43-05: Final 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 introduced the item, a Final Plat for Cypress Park Addition, a five-lot single-family residential subdivision located at 1801 Learnard Avenue. The 2.229 acre plat contains an existing house and accessory structure/garage located on proposed Lot 3.
The Preliminary Plat was denied by the Planning Commission on July 25, 2005.
On November 8, 2005, the City Commission held a de novo hearing, per the applicant’s request and approved the Preliminary Plat.
On December 12, the Planning Commission concurred with the City Commission’s action on the Preliminary Plat approval, with a 5-4 vote.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission approved the Final Plat as it conforms to the Preliminary Plat approved by the City Commission in a de novo hearing, and subject to the five conditions as listed in the staff report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATON
Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, representing the applicant, made a presentation and stated the applicant was in agreement with the suggested conditions of approval of the Final Plat.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission discussed the Final Plat and how it conforms to the Preliminary Plat approved by the City Commission in the De Novo hearing, and how the proposed plat fits into the existing neighborhood.
Commissioner Eichhorn expressed his concern with the flag lot configuration.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Lawson seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve the Final Plat for Cypress Park, subject to the following conditions, as listed in the Staff report:
Motion carried, 5-4 with Commissioners Lawson, Krebs, Haase, Riordan and Erickson in favor of the motion to approve, and Commissioners Burress, Jennings, Ermeling, and Eichhorn opposed to the motion.
PC minutes 01/23/06
ITEM NO. 4: FINAL PLAT FOR PIONEER RIDGE GOLF ESTATES; 408 HOMESTEAD DRIVE (MKM)
PF-12-45-05: Final Plat for Pioneer Ridge Golf Estates, a replat of Lot 11, less the north 20 feet, all of Lot 12, and Lot 13, less the west 30 feet, Block 15, Pioneer Ridge. This proposed three-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 1.233 acres. The property is generally described as being located at 408 Homestead Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for John A. and Deanell R. Tacha, property owners of record.
Pulled from Consent Agenda by Planning Commission, as requested by neighboring property owners, for additional discussion.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Miller introduced the item, a final plat for a 3-lot single-family residential development. Ms. Miller said the property had originally been platted as 3 lots but is being replatted to reconfigure the boundary lines.
Neighboring property owners had expressed concerns with drainage from the development, lot sizes, the increased number of curb cuts and potential design features of the area. Ms. Miller presented a graphic which showed that 2 of the reconfigured lots were similar to the average lot size in the area and 1 was larger. She said that the City Engineer had noticed drainage issues for the neighboring property owner to the west, but this was drainage from many properties not merely the lots in question. The City Engineer had recommended a non-engineered swale to address the drainage issue. Ms. Miller stated that the pedestrian easement along the south to the golf course would need to be removed from the plat, since it did not lead to a public open space.
APPLICANT PRESENTATON
John Selk of Landplan Engineering, explained that the developer planned to grade the property so it would not drain to the property to the west. He said the developer planned to build quality homes in the area which would be assets to the area. The pedestrian easement allows those residents who belong to the Country Club access to the golf course, but the easement would be removed from the plat since it is not a public easement.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The commissioners discussed the history of the lots and asked Staff how existing lots came to be. Staff answered that the area was platted in the 1960s and shortly after that portions of Lots 13 and 11 were sold to the neighboring property owners. The existing house will be demolished and 3 new houses built on the lots. The lots are being reconfigured to provide adequate area for each property.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Jennings to approve the Final Plat for Pioneer Ridge Golf Estates 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. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
b. A completed Master Street Tree Plan in accordance with Section 21-708a.3.
2. Public Improvement Plans for extension of sanitary sewer main to Lot 1 submitted to City Engineer for approval or Utility Improvement Plans submitted to Utilities Department if extension of main is not required.
3. Addition of these items to the final plat:
a) Signature blank with ‘Director, Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Department’ beneath it
b) Note concerning the restrictive covenants which apply to this project, with the book and page reference.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0
PC minutes 01/23/06
ITEM NO. 5: FINAL PLAT FOR LANGSTON HEIGHTS; NORTH OF BOB BILLINGS PARKWAY BETWEEN K-10 AND DIAMONDHEAD SUBDIVISION (SLD)
PF-12-46-05: Final Plat of Langston Heights. This proposed residential subdivision contains approximately 27.57 acres and proposes the creation of 69 single-family and 19 duplex residential lots. The property is generally described as being located north of Bob Billings Parkway between K-10 and Diamondhead Subdivision. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A. for Langston Heights, LC, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Krebs, to approve the Final Plat for Langston Heights based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC minutes 01/23/06
ITEM NO. 6A: I-1 & A to RM-2; 12.329 ACRES; SOUTH OF E 23RD (K-10 HIGHWAY) BETWEEN O’CONNELL ROAD & FRANKLIN ROAD (SLD)
Z-06-39-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 12.329 acres from I-1 (Limited Industrial) District and 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. This item was deferred from the December Planning Commission meeting.
PC minutes 01/23/06
ITEM NO. 6B: I-1 & A TO M-1; 17.889 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 17.889 acres from I-1 (Limited Industrial) District and 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. This item was deferred from the December Planning Commission meeting.
PC minutes 01/23/06
ITEM NO. 6C: B-1, I-1, & A TO C-5; 28.833 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 28.833 acres from B-1 (Neighborhood Business) District, I-1 (Limited Industrial) District, and 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. This item was deferred from the December Planning Commission meeting.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Day introduced these items, a proposed rezoning for commercial, industrial, and multi-family development as part of the Fairfield Farms East Subdivision approved by the Planning Commission in December 2005.
Applicant Presentation
Mike Keeney introduced the item and described the layout of the proposed development. He stated that it complied with the land uses in all versions of the Southeast Area Plan.
Commission Eichhorn inquired about the white area shown on the plan and confirmed with Mr. Keeney that it was the “Queen Property” and not included in the proposed development. Mr. Keeney also noted the status of a benefit district for the street and sanitary sewer improvements that would be required.
Commissioner Burress confirmed that there was no access to 23rd Street and confirmed that there is a restriction of commercial uses to one corner of the intersection as a neighborhood commercial node.
Commissioner Eichhorn inquired how the proposed commercial development compared to Hy-Vee at Clinton Parkway and Kasold.
Public Hearing
There was no public comment on these items.
Commission Discussion
The Planning Commission had a general discussion about the location of future commercial nodes in the southeast area.
Commissioner Haase noted that a CC400 is proposed in the plan for the intersection of K-10 and Noria Road. He suggested that no more commercial uses would be developed in the area except a small neighborhood center at 31st and E 1700 Road.
Vice Chair Krebs stated her interest in the commercial development occurring consistent with the commercial design standards and a possible change to a PCD.
Commissioner Burress stated his concern about approval of a commercial development without a plan.
Commission Lawson inquired about the status of the design standards.
Comm. Haase stated that that he recalled the Planning Commission had approved the guidelines and forwarded them to the City Commission with revisions and they were to be adopted with the development code.
Commissioner Lawson stated that he was concerned to be it was hard to hold an applicant to codes not yet adopted.
Vice Chair Krebs stated the reason to consider the use of a PCD would be to use the design standards until they are formally adopted since they could be used as a guideline for PCD’s.
Chairman Riordan asked for comments about a PCD.
Mr. Keeney responded that it was a time issue. There was about a year of planning before full site planning could begin. The design standards would be in place by that time and a site plan would be submitted. He stated that all the engineering still needed to be done.
Commissioner Krebs announced her retraction of the PCD consideration and just wanted the development to comply with the standards. It was noted to staff that Legal Services needed to be pressed to prepare the design standards for adoption.
Commissioner Burress stated that he was not sure about the development code being adopted soon enough. He stated that a PCD with approval of a plan would provide that assurance.
Vice Chair Krebs asked the applicant to comment on the burden of planned unit developments. Mr. Keeney responded that it is a time burden
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that if Neighborhood Commercial Centers are to be Planned Commercial Developments, then it should be a code requirement.
Bill Newsome, applicant/developer stated that a PCD could be used. He stated that a grocery store user will fuel the development. He hoped to have confirmation within 36 months.
Commissioner Ermeling stated a need for predictability of use. She noted that K-10 Highway was a gateway and needed to have control over the industrial zoning as well.
Ms. Stogsdill responded that she could confirm the status of the code and expectations to be adopted by reference to the new code.
There was clear intent for development to comply with design standards based on the Commission’s discussion.
Commissioner Jennings stated that he was comfortable with a grocery store use and that it will control the design. They generally have good curb appeal. He stated that the anticipated 36 months noted by the developer would provide time to resolve the Southeast Area Plan.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that staff reviews submission of applications based on code at time of submission.
COMMISSION ACTION
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Jennings to approve Z-06-39-05 the rezoning of approximately 12.329 acres from I-1 (Limited Industrial) District and A (Agricultural) District to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District and forwarding the application to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Publication of an annexation ordinance; and
2. Recording of a final Plat.
Motion carried 9-0 for approval.
Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Krebs to approve Z-06-41-05 the rezoning of approximately 17.889 acres from I-1 (Limited Industrial) District and A (Agricultural) District to the PID-1 District based on the Lesser Change Table and forwarding the application to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Publication of an annexation ordinance;
Motion carried 9-0 for approval.
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Ermeling to approve Z-06-42-05 the rezoning of approximately 28.833 acres from B-1 (Neighborhood Business) District, I-1 (Limited Industrial) District, and A (Agricultural) District to the PCD-2 District based on the Lesser Change Table and forwarding the application to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Publication of an annexation ordinance;
Motion carried 9-0 for approval.
PC minutes 01/23/06
ITEM NO. 7: RM-2 TO RS-2; 2.15 ACRES; NORTH OF W. 5TH STREET BETWEEN WISCONSIN & MICHIGAN STREETS (MJL)
Z-10-67-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 2.15 acres from RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of W. 5th Street between Wisconsin and Michigan Streets (1620, 1612, 1604, 1512, 1508, and 1500 W. 5th Street; and 446 Florida Street). Initiated by the City Commission on 10/25/05, based on recommendations in the HOP District Plan. This item was deferred by the applicant from the December Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Leininger described the proposed rezoning from RM-2 District to RS-2 District. In initial discussions with the neighborhood, staff had suggested that a larger portion surrounding the subject property be rezoned to RM-D District and/or RM-1 District. By rezoning the subject properties, there would not be appropriate transitions between the current RM-2, high-density residential district and the proposed RS-2 low-density district and there would not be any direct relation to the proposed district and another single-family residential district. The proposed rezoning would also create a nonconforming use at 1512 W. 5th Street. The property is developed with two single-family homes.
Staff recommended denial of the rezoning from RM-2 to RS-2.
PUBLIC HEARING
John Cook, owner of 1512 W. 5th Street, opposed to the rezoning because it would make his property nonconforming. He was currently trying to sell the property and the uncertainty makes the property very difficult to sell.
Gwen Klingenberg, Pinckney Neighborhood Coordinator, was unaware that 1512 W. 5th Street would be nonconforming if rezoned to RS-2 when the task force started the process. Three of the subject properties’ owners are in favor of the rezoning.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was discussed that the HOP District Plan recommends rezoning properties to the current use and this proposal would generally do that.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Jennings to recommend approval the rezoning from RM-2 to RS-2 on 1620, 1612, 1604, 1512, 1508, and 1500 W. 5th Street and 446 Florida Street and forward it to the City Commission. Commissioner Eichhorn stated the recommendation was based on the following reasons:
- The properties would be zoned to the current use.
- The proposed rezoning would follow the recommendation of the HOP District Plan to rezone to the existing use.
- The rezoning would protect the single-family homes.
Motion carried 8-1, with Burress, Ermeling, Krebs,
Erickson, Haase, Jennings, Lawson, and Eichhorn voting in
favor. Riordan voted in opposition. Harris was absent.
PC minutes 01/23/06
ITEM NO. 8: RM-3 TO RM-1; 2.19 ACRES; 1515 W. 7th STREET (MJL)
Z-12-81-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 2.19 acres from RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) District to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located south of W. 7th Street, east of Wisconsin Street (1515 W. 7th Street). This item was initiated by the Planning Commission after recommending denial of a previous RM-3 to RM-2 rezoning request at their December 14, 2005, meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Leininger described the proposed rezoning from RM-3 District to RM-1 District. This item was initiated by the Planning Commission last month as a result of another proposed rezoning of this property from RM-3 to RM-2 which was denied. The rezoning would create appropriate transitions between the high-density residential and the low-density residential and it is consistent with the zoning across W. 7th Street in relation to density. The property owner is willing to rezone to RM-2 only but did offer to rezone to the proposed new RM15 District in the Development Code when it is adopted as a compromise.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning from RM-3 District to RM-1 District. Staff also provided an alternate recommendation: table the item and revisit after the adoption of the Development Code and propose the rezoning from RM32 (RM-3) to RM15.
PUBLIC HEARING
Burke Griggs, supports the RM-1 zoning because it would help to protect the character of the neighborhood.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Spot zoning was discussed as to whether or not this rezoning would be considered spot zoning. Staff responded that spot zoning can be defined any number of ways and it can depend if the rezoning is related to the current use.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Ermeling to recommend approval of the rezoning from RM-3 to RM-1 on 1515 W. 7th Street and forward the recommendation to the City Commission.
Motion carried 8-1, with Burress, Ermeling, Krebs, Erickson, Haase, Jennings, Lawson, and Riordan voting in favor. Eichhorn voted in opposition. Harris was absent.
ITEM NO. 9: HIERARCHY OF PLANS (MJL)
Hold public hearing on Hierarchy of Plans.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Leininger presented the different types of plans, watershed, sector, neighborhood, special area: nodal, corridor, specific issue/district plans. The diagram of plans was shown
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Eichhorn asked if the diagram could be published in the paper or somewhere. Staff stated that the diagram is currently on the Planning website and could possibly be published following adoption.
Krebs would like to see more specific descriptions for the plans and a comprehensive plan description added. The watershed plan purpose should be described further. She suggested the commission use the term sector plan instead of area plan. The commission discussed whether the common steps were common to all of the plans. An observation was made that this process was not used for the Southeast Area Plan or the Northwest Area Plan.
Haase felt the example of a watershed plan was not an example, it should be listed under a special area plan and that we don’t have an example of a watershed plan. Illustrations would help to support the text.
Burress suggested adding what typical documents or components would be provided in each type of plan; for example different types of maps.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Eichhorn to send the Hierarchy of Plans back to staff for revisions and to return it to the PC for further consideration this spring.
Motion carried 8-0, with Burress, Ermeling, Krebs, Erickson, Haase, Jennings, Eichhorn, and Riordan voting in favor. None voted in opposition. Harris and Lawson were absent.
PC minutes 01/23/06
ITEM NO. 10: BURROUGHS CREEK PLAN (MJL)
Conduct a hearing regarding Burroughs Creek Plan. The property bounded by Haskell Avenue on the east, E. 31st Street on the south, the eastern border of Haskell Indian Nation University on the west between E. 31st and E. 23rd Streets, Learnard Avenue on the west between E. 23rd and E. 15th Streets, Pennsylvania Street on the west between E. 15th and E. 11th Streets, Delaware Street on the west between E. 11th and E. 9th Streets, and W. 9th Street on the north. Initiated by the City Commission in October 2004.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Leininger presented by explaining the process that the plan took, the study area and temporary building permit moratorium areas, the background, areas of concern, and each goal.
Staff recommended approval of the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING
Matt Tomc, Woods on 19th homeowners association, feels the proposed rezonings are a good idea. The homeowners association had concerns regarding the recommended acquisition of the property at the northeast intersection of E. 19th Street and the railroad corridor. They do not want the property to be just a parking lot. They would like it to be greenspace. Another concern is that the trail/park not interrupt the existing drainage in the railroad corridor and the proximity of the proposed Salvation Army Complex to the park.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff was asked about the issues that Mr. Tomc brought up. Staff stated that many of his concerns will be taken care of in the park planning process the Parks and Recreation department will go through. This process allows the public to be a part of planning the park/trail. The plan does not get into specifics on the park/trail design.
Ermeling pointed out a spelling error on the Historic map.
Various Commissioners stated that they felt the plan was a good product and will be a good project.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Krebs to recommend approval of the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan and forward the recommendation to the City Commission.
Motion carried 7-0, with Burress, Erickson, Haase, Jennings, Ermeling, Krebs, and Riordan voting in favor. None voted in opposition. Lawson, Harris, and Eichhorn were absent.
PC minutes 01/23/06
MISC. ITEM NO. 1: OLD BUSINESS
Extension of approval of FDP-06-09-04: Final Development Plan for Delaware Commons Co-Housing Project; east of Delaware Street between E. 12th & E. 13th Streets – as allowed in Section 20-1013(d).
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Stogsdill referred to the letter from Rich Minder and the staff memo provided in communications. Staff recommended the extension of the approval for six months to July 28, 2006.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Krebs, seconded by Commissioner Haase to approve a six month extension for FDP-06-09-04: Final Development Plan for Delaware Commons Co-Housing Project through July 28, 2006. If construction of this PUD has not commenced by this date, the approval will become null and void.
Motion carried unanimously (7-0).
_____________________________________________________________________________
January 25, 2006 – reconvened at 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs, Jennings, Lawson,
Staff present: Stogsdill, Ahrens, Day, Patterson, ______________________________________________________________________
COMMUNICATIONS
ITEM 11 - Rezoning A to A-1; 9.53 Acres; 621 E 1750 Road
·Photos of the area provided by area resident.
MISC ITEM 1 - Planning Commission Submittal Deadlines & Meeting Dates
· Revised schedule with revisions made to the April meeting dates and the submittal deadline for these meetings.
MISC ITEM 2 - Student Representative
· Letter of resignation from Student Representative, Andrew Wright.
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUESTS
· Commissioner Lawson indicated he would abstain from Item No. 11.
The Commission moved from this point to Item 1.
PC minutes 01/25/06
ITEM NO. 11: A TO A-1; 9.53 ACRES; 621 E 1750 ROAD (PGP)
Z-12-79-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 9.53 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Home) District. The property is generally described as being located at 621 E 1750 Road. Submitted by David McFarlane, contract purchaser, for James R. Smart, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a rezoning request for 9.52 acres located at 621 E 1750 Road from A (Agriculture) to A-1 (Suburban Home) District. The applicant is proposing to develop this property into three 3+ acre lots. There is an existing house located on the proposed southern lot.
The property is accessible to an airport taxiway easement leading to the Vinland Airport.
The site is 3 miles south of the Lawrence Urban Growth Area. The proposed lot frontages would be approximately 210’, 155’ & 155’. The property is not contiguous to a platted subdivision.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for denial as the rezoning request was outside an Urban Growth Area (3 miles south of the Lawrence Urban Growth Area), E 1750 Road is a gravel road, the proposed lot frontages would be approximately 210’, 155’, and 155’, and the property is not contiguous to a platted subdivision.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
David McFarlane, applicant/contract purchaser of the property, made a presentation with the following points:
PUBLIC COMMENT
Joe Hoelscher – 1740 N 600 Road
· Opposed to the rezoning. This would be an expansion of the airport/runway.
· Concerned about safety of the take off and landings.
· In 1992, the applicant was opposed to the house on this property being constructed.
· Concerned about aircraft noise as they rev up and down the engines as part of a normal pre-flight test, which are not currently experience in proximity to his property.
· Other land is available owned by the applicant to the south of the airport.
David McFarlane then responded to a question from the Planning Commission and restated his prior reasons to support the rezoning request.
Linda Nelson – 615 E 1750 Road
· Concerned with the aircraft noise and safety.
· Would allow for airplanes within hundreds of feet to her house and bedroom.
· Aircraft should be kept closer to the airport.
· Disagreed that land was not good for agriculture, since soybeans have been grown on the property.
· Concerned with the future resale on her house.
· Aircrafts come closer to her house, and sometimes buzz her house.
Applicant’s closing remarks – David McFarlane
· Noise would be like a pick-up when the aircraft is taxiing.
· Covenants will not allow them to rev up the engines when conducting pre-flight tests of aircraft.
· Believes taxiway could be a potential increase of value of property to the south.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Eichhorn: Concerned that there should be an overall best plan for the airport area, and that this requested rezoning would be piecemeal. Would like to see the entire area be planned, including input from the existing residents.
The property is outside the Urban Growth Area, and is not contiguous to a platted subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to deny the requested rezoning from A (Agriculture) to A-1 (Suburban Home) District based upon the findings as listed in the Staff Report.
Motion carried, 8-0-1, with Commissioner Lawson abstaining from this item.
PC minutes 01/25/06
ITEM NO.13: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR NORTHGATE COMMERCIAL; SOUTH OF W. 6TH STREET BETWEEN GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) AND THE SOUTH LAWRENCE TRAFFICWAY/K10 (SLD)
PDP-09-08-05: Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Northgate Commercial (aka: Diamondhead). This proposed planned commercial development contains approximately 31.005 acres. The property is generally described as being located south of W. 6th Street between George Williams Way (extended) and the South Lawrence Trafficway/K-10. The plan proposes 198,714 gross square feet of commercial uses including a convenience store, drug store, bank, and five other retail buildings. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Diamondhead Limited Partnership, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Sandra Day, Planning Staff, introduced the item and discussed how the proposed development complied with the design standards and where it deviated from the standards. She stated that the project was envisioned as (and in fact has begun to develop) as an integrated mixed use development including residential, townhome, apartment/office and commercial uses. Actual planning began in the mid 1990 with meetings between staff and the applicant to determine basic zoning districts to delineate the general areas of the project. She described the commercial area and the surrounding land uses and development pattern. The following physical constraints to development of the property included; access control, exclusive easement, depth of property. Other constraints noted by Day were:
· Surrounded on 4 sides by public right-of-way
· Grade changes that result in the property sitting lower than the street level. Limit on the total amount of retail area (Square Footage)
· Land use decisions of the surrounding area
· Existing code requirements
Day stated that by design or nature, a PDP is not intended to function as a final document thus some details such as site lighting, final landscape plans (appearance), and building finishes are specific details that occur in a Final Development Plan consideration. She noted, however, that the proposed plan did comply with the current code requirements as noted in the staff report. It also provides many elements identified in the Commercial Design Standards that are also code requirements such as stormwater provisions, parking area, and open space requirements.
Day next outlined the format for the review of the development using the commercial design guidelines. She stated that there is subjectivity to the review format as it exists today and noted there were numerous items that were not applicable to the property because of location or proximity to right-of-way on all sides.
Many items required in the Commercial Design Guidelines are of an architectural nature and not appropriately considered at this time as part of a Preliminary Development Plan except in the abstract or to indicate what is expected with a Final Development Plan.
Finally, Day stated that there were some items that could be revised and/or conditioned to result in a closer concurrency with the intent of the Commercial Design Standards. Simple modifications, in building orientation and in access, will better meet the intent of the Commercial design Standards and enhance the customer or public experience of the site. Amenities such as planters, street furniture and light fixtures will be detail elements anticipated with the final development plan and subject to Staff and Planning Commission Review.
Day stated that staff had not altered the recommended conditions based on the review of the Commercial Design Standards. If the Commission is so desirous, a general note could be added to require that such items as light fixtures and public areas within the development be designed with a pedestrian scale and that details of such element shall be provided with the submission of a final development plan
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
C.L. Maurer, Landplan Engineering, provided an update of the project. He noted that it has been in process since 2001. There have been many revisions to the development plan. He addressed recommended condition number 4A and stated concerns that timing of the intersection improvements were established base on phasing of the development plan and based on the traffic generated per phase of development. He further stated that many of the specific uses were unknown at this time and that applicant couldn’t address many of the design standards until specific users are identified.
Brian Kubota, applicant, stated that the proposed project had been delayed while a nodal plan was developed; traffic and market studies were prepared. He noted that with regard to the adjacent abutting areas no residential uses are adjacent because of the perimeter streets.
· He stated there was assurance of overview of the project and that the Planning Commission will review it many times with subsequent Final Development Plans and revised Preliminary Development Plans as applicable.
· Covenants will be established to address aesthetic issues, maintenance, buildings, trash, signage, etc.
· The plan would need to conform to retail studies.
· The project needs to orient to neighborhood uses to the south and east. Thee will be community uses to service the larger neighborhood.
· Only one access to George Williams Way and Highway 40 is available until 15th Street interchange is building.
Mr. Kubota described the difficulty in defining a time frame for phasing. These were based on marketing and tenant occupancy. He didn’t know the absorption rate and so could not define dates of phases. The development would have a strong neighborhood focus until 15th Street is completed. The addition of “community uses” was not expected that would result in the development of the project as a regional commercial project. He noted that the most significant issue is access to the development is restricted to George Williams Way as the only point of access.
Commission Questions:
Commissioner Harris asked that the truck circulation be described. Mr. Maurer responded to this question to demonstrate adequate circulation was accommodated.
Commissioner Lawson confirmed that the north access is right-in/right-out only. He asked Mr. Kubota to comment on a development time table.
Mr. Kubota state the project is market driven and that the western half of the development was based on the extension of Ken Ridge Drive. The eastern part of the development has identified users. Phasing was discussed a follows: Phase 1 is estimated to occur in 12 months, Phases 2 and 3 to occur in an estimated 2 years, Phases 4 and 5 could take up to 8 years to complete the total development.
Commissioner Haase asked if an economic analysis was provided. Staff responded that a market study had been provided. He referred to Horizon 2020 Policy 3.11 and noted that no analysis of impact on specific segments of the retail market had been provided. He argued that the development should be tied to phasing based on absorption.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the parking was excessive. Applicants responded that it was not known. The parking exceeds code, but is less than typical for national retailers. Mr. Maurer responded that without specific uses it was difficult to determine actual needs.
Mr. Kubota stated that the proposed development plan was intended to be flexible. He quoted that the application was accompanied with a $15,000 market study.
Commissioner Haase asked the applicant to respond to Condition Number 4A of the staff report. Staff stated that the condition was in response to an identified concern about multiple construction interruptions to the intersection as the project is phases/developed.
Commissioner Burress asked if it was acceptable to defer all improvements until Phase 4.
Commissioner Ermeling stated that it was reasonable to have some condition about integrated design theme so that the use of national stock facades would not dominate the development.
Commissioner Burress stated concern that he didn’t know what the project would look like from W. 6th Street. Mr. Maurer described the area with a hill 7-8’ higher than the street and the building dropping about 12’ to the south. He stated that the buildings would be more visible from George Williams Way. The convenience store will be higher than George Williams Way.
Commissioner Burress asked for more screening along W. 6th Street to screen roofs and cars. He asked that this be addressed with the Final Development Plan.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated a concern about the condition that Final Development Plans be designed to new design guidelines. Mr. Kubota responded that he was in substantial agreement with the March 2005 guidelines.
Vice Chair Krebs inquired about the maximum square feet allowed in a CC 400 district and how it would be distributed.
Commissioner Ermeling asked if the Commission could limit the project to mitigate impacts.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Jennings asked if there was a time limit on permitted uses.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Kubota stated that design in the first phase is important to maintain values for future phases and he was willing to use the design manual as guidelines specific to the March 2005 version.
Ms. Day stated the need to add a note referencing Section 20-1011(f) regarding future changes and property owner participation of such change or waiving that right.
Commissioner Jennings noted that the City currently has a restrictive sign ordinance. He did not think it was necessary to add additional restrictions to handicap visibility of the center if there is a desire for it to be successful.
Commissioner Burress indicated that a project at that location is not likely to fail because of sign restrictions.
Vice Chair Krebs requested a discussion of the amount of commercial space that should be allowed at this intersection. She inquired about the ULI guidelines and stated there was an average of 150,000 SF but that it ranged from 100,000 to 450,000 SF
Commissioner Haase stated that distribution of commercial space was defined in Horizon 2020 and addressed in the comprehensive review in Chapter 6. He stated that there was a need to attach a condition on the Preliminary Development Plan deferring some design guidelines to the Final Development Plan.
Vice Chair Krebs state that the commission needed to address building location, orientation to streets, pedestrian scaled spaces, parking layout, framing Ken Ridge Drive where there is more pedestrian access and was not comfortable with the building envelopes.
Commissioner Haase stated the development plan does not come close to achieving a lot of what the standards are aimed at and note the presence of the pipeline as a real constraint to building locations.
Vice Chair Krebs restated her opinion that the bank, drugstore, and C-store do not frame the primary access.
Commissioner Ermeling asked about the ability to relocate buildings.
Commissioner Haase stated that the proposed design keeps parking in smaller groups. Commissioner Lawson agreed with that observation.
Commissioner Lawson stated the applicant had done a good job of proposing only portions of the total square foot and expected quality development.
The Commission discussed the required intersection improvements as follows:
Commissioner Eichhorn had concerns about too much cost upfront. The left turn lane for George Williams Way was most important.
Commissioner Harris stated that geometric improvements for he intersection as necessary should b provided before each phase of the commercial development.
Ms. Stogsdill stated the applicant and staff could work on language before the City Commission meeting.
Commissioner Haase stated it would be nice to have a financing mechanism to building the ultimate improvements. He noted that traffic warrants are an important factor.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked applicant to define which improvements would be installed with each phase. Ms. Day state that it was included in the phasing plan which was conditioned to be revised to include construction dates. Mr. Kubota added that traffic engineering also evaluated the north side and that some improvements may be needed as a result of development to the north prior to Northgate’s Phase E occupancy.
Vice Chair Krebs requested a presentation about the changes that could be made to the development as they apply to the design guidelines.
Ms. Day presented a summary of the proposed development’s consistency with the Design guidelines. She described the process that when into the review and noted that specific evaluations such as topographic limits had not been evaluated for the proposed concepts to be described. She also noted the time and preparation that had gone into this presentation and the need for multiple staff involvement not just from the planning office to provide this response. The following items were noted as possibility that could improve consistency such as:
· Relocating the center drive aisle to provide parking adjacent to the buildings;
· Provision of additional pedestrian pathways in the west end on a diagonal from Ken Ridge Drive and from W. 6th Street to the main building on the east side; and
· Reoriented building pattern from the bank and drugstore that would frame the main access way though the development.
Mr. Kubota was asked by Commissioner Eichhorn to provide his opinions on these ideas. Mr. Kubota responded that the pedestrian connections were good. He noted that they had examined the bank and drug store locations and found that the grade made orientation very difficult. The perimeter drive was designed without parking to allow for service vehicles such as trash trucks to circulate. He liked the idea of using pervious surface for access parking spaces. The elimination of the drive adjacent to the building may conflict with fire land requirements and would like to do a nice plaza area out front.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Ermeling, seconded by Commissioner Haase to recommend approval of the PDP-09-08-05 and forward the item to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval and recording of a Final Plat prior to release of a Final Development Plan for issuance of any building permits for any portion of the proposed development;
2. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future street and intersection improvements for W. 6th Street, George Williams Way and Ken Ridge Drive;
3. Execution of an agreement not to protest benefit district for traffic signals at W. 6th& George Williams Way;
4. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that states:
a.
“Geometric
improvements for the intersection of W. 6th Street and George Williams Way shall be constructed with the
initial phase of commercial development.”
5. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to provide a phasing plan per 20-1010(b) (13) that shows timing of improvements ;
6. Provision of a note referring to Section 20-1011(f) allowing for a waiver of property rights to change the plan in the future.
7. Provision of tow pedestrian paths in the west and central portion soothe development; and
8. Revision of 4A as follows: “Geometric improvements for the intersection of W. 6th Street and George Williams Way shall be constructed as necessary before each phase of commercial development”
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Commissioner Haase stated he thought there was a need for a condition to provide a complete market study. The study needed to define if use restrictions are identified using integrated sales tax information study when market impact analysis completed, if use restrictions are identified those uses may be restricted at the Final Development Plan stage.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that Commissioner Haase’s suggestion is vital but he was uncomfortable with it.
Commissioner Jennings stated that he would not support the motion because of this last condition. It was saying that we will only accept what we have, we will never get better uses and this is a restraint of trade.
Commissioner Haase stated that then the comprehensive plan should be changed if it is not going to be followed. The Development Strategies study does not address the impacts in other areas of town.
Commissioner Burress stated that with regard to retail impact, the total square footage was only part of the question. Review of uses service-by-service was required. The motion doesn’t get at the total amount. His concern was not about specific uses but with the total amount of commercial square footage allowed.
Commissioner Haase stated that market analysis with identified sectors was needed and that there needs to be an indication of lake or excess of uses. He asked what category vacant space goes in.
Commissioner Burress stated the concern as one of oversupply versus undersupply and if the community is overbuilding, then we will create a vacancy in the center part of town.
Commissioner Jennings stated there was less of a difference for grocery stores in Downtown and noted that Food-4-Less had just gone out of business because it was too small to compete with other grocery stores – it was obsolete.
Vice Chair Krebs asked for a reading of policy 3.11 which Ms. Stogsdill provided and read from Horizon 2020.
Commissioner Lawson asked if the Commission had used this policy before. Commissioner Haase stated that this was the first project to be submitted with this current language. Commissioner Lawson asked Commissioner Haase to state why he felt the Development Strategies study as flawed.
Commissioner Haase stated that he had reviewed dozen of studies across the county. The Planning Commission as a group hasn’t reviewed the report and needed to study the data. He couldn’t just accept the data. He noted that the 2004 and 2005 data differed.
Commissioner Jennings stated that the development would be absorbed in 3 years after completion in 11 years as described by the applicant.
Commissioner Burress noted two criteria; one, and 7 percent vacancy rate and the aggregate impact on downtown.
Commissioner Haase stated that he was following policy and may help the developer by identifying sectors that are underserved.
Commissioner Burress observed with regard to the retail market study the comparison groups were stand alone cities unlike Lawrence making them useless. The retail space uses are filled with non-retail activities of 30%.
Commissioner Ermeling stated it was not her intention to withhold square footage in the future.
Commissioner Haase stated he was adamant about the intention of Horizon 202 and the Planning Commission should take up this issue at a study session.
Commissioner Lawson asked for Commissioner Haase’s concerns and if this was intended to restrict use. Commissioner Haase stated that he was concerned about a department store.
Commissioner Lawson stated that the focus of the study was to assess total square footage and that the Final Development Plan Could restrict uses. He asked how this would be responsive to that issue.
Commissioner Haase stated that if a sector was way over-served, then adding more of that use would impact Downtown. If the Commission restricted the use, that dollars could be shifted to a different area.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Ermeling, seconded by Commissioner Haase to recommend approval of the PDP-09-08-05 and forward the item to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval and recording of a Final Plat prior to release of a Final Development Plan for issuance of any building permits for any portion of the proposed development;
2. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future street and intersection improvements for W. 6th Street, George Williams Way and Ken Ridge Drive;
3. Execution of an agreement not to protest benefit district for traffic signals at W. 6th& George Williams Way;
4.
Provision
of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that states:
a.
Geometric
improvements for the intersection of W. 6th Street and George Williams Way shall be constructed with the
initial phase of commercial development.”
5. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to provide a phasing plan per 20-1010(b) (13) that shows timing of improvements ;
6. Provision of a note referring to Section 20-1011(f) allowing for a waiver of property rights to change the plan in the future;
7. Provision of tow pedestrian paths in the west and central portion soothe development; and
8. Revision of 4A as follows: “Geometric improvements for the intersection of W. 6th Street and George Williams Way shall be constructed as necessary before each phase of commercial development”
9. Provision of a note on the Preliminary Development Plan that states: “The Planning Commission shall have the authority to establish additional use restrictions on the Final Development Plan. Such restrictions may be based in part on the completed Retail Market Study database and recommendations on suggested specific uses that are not appropriate.”
Commissioner Haase stated that the parking lot islands might be combined with larger clusters instead of uniform islands.
Mr. Kubota asked if this last condition would be put on all commercial developments in the future.
Vice Chair Krebs stated it would for all commercial development over 150,000 Square Feet.
Motion carried 8 to 1 (Commissioner Jennings voted in opposition.)
PC minutes 01/25/06
ITEM NO. 14: RS-2 TO RM-D; 8.19 ACRES; NORTH OF HARVARD ROAD & EAST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (SLD)
Z-12-78-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 8.19 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 Road and east of George Williams Way, and is a portion of Greentree Subdivision. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for Harvard, LC, property owner of record.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Day introduced this item, a proposed rezoning from single-family to duplex uses and described the surrounding area.
Applicant PresentatiOn
Paul Werner, architect for applicant, stated that the purpose of the request is to provide an affordable solution in West Lawrence; any effect from duplex development would occur within the development. He stated the owner has an investment in the area with the single-family home he will be constructing.
Vice Chair Krebs asked the applicant to respond to the purpose of the RM-D zoning. The applicant responded that the use of duplex cuts the land cost in half and allows for the construction of a more affordable product.
Commissioner Burress stated that he objected to the use of the term affordable housing. He would be amenable to the term moderate-income housing. He discussed housing costs projected for the area as $200,000 per side for a duplex versus $300,000 for single family. Several single-family houses have sold south of 15th Street on George Williams Way. That price range part of the market has changed.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked why the applicant had requested the original change from RM-1 to RS-2. Mr. Werner noted that the proposed change of direction was in response to market conditions.
Public Hearing
Gwen Klingenberg, representing the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, described the subject property as being across from The Cove subdivision and that it is all ready duplexes. There was no need to buffer from the existing RM-1 district. There are single-family homes in this neighborhood less than $200,000. She commented that most duplexes are rentals and not characteristic of the neighborhood.
Randy Habinger, Robinson Drive, stated that he has been a resident for 4 months. He described access to Harvard and proximity to the school. He has been witness to accidents and many properties have sold recently.
Allen Cowles, West Lawrence Neighborhood Association President, complimented the efforts of Paul Werner and Mike Stultz and recognized the efforts to communicate with residents. He restated the neighborhood concerns about schools, and the incremental growth in traffic. Incremental rezoning should result from other conditions not witnessed in the area. He recommended that the current zoning stay.
Mike Stultz, developer of the project, stated that he has been a builder in Lawrence for 30 years and has built about 20% of the market and 50% of those homes under $200,000 as starter homes. He noted that he has built in the Legends Trail, Ironwood, and Stoneback Ridge subdivisions which do not have much of a traffic problem. The east portion of the subject property was replatted to reduce the lot size and provide a more affordable product. He found that the $300,000 market was not there. Other projects were turned down and that he proposed to revisit this project. He stated that it is possible to blend townhomes in to single-family projects.
Commissioner Burress stated that he had concerns about rentals and asked the applicant for examples of townhouse development that was mostly owner occupied.
Mr. Stultz referenced Ironwood and Legends subdivisions. He stated that rental uses are a fact.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that he understood the economics but recognized the presence of single-family residences in this area and that property owners had made investments based on previous zoning and subdivision decisions.
COMMISSION ACTION
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Harris to deny Z-12-78-05 the rezoning of approximately 8.19 acres from the RS-2 District to the RM-D District and forwarding the application to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report.
Commissioner Burress stated that he was sympathetic to affordable concerns and to get denser the community needs to allow this to happen.
Commissioner Jennings stated that he wants to encourage mixed housing, but was not sure this application was appropriate.
Commissioner Ermeling stated that she supported higher density but this request was not planned that way from the community. She stated that she did support the concept, but that the higher density should be planned upfront.
Vice Chair Krebs stated that mixed of housing within a block, providing bigger houses on corners would be more applicable rather than as a strip. Such development needed to be planned within the entire neighborhood.
Motion carried 6-3 for denial with Commissioners Jennings, Lawson, and Haase voting in opposition.
PC minutes 01/25/06
ITEM NO. 15: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – CHAPTER 9 – PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACES (PGP/BE)
CPA-2005-02: Receive comments from City/County Commission regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to Horizon 2020, Chapter 9 – Parks, Recreation, and Open Space. This chapter was considered at the May 25th Planning Commission meeting and referred to the Parks and Recreation Committee for further review. Planning Commission recommended approval on September 28, 2006, and forwarded amendment to governing bodies. This item was deferred from the December Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Lawson left.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Patterson introduced this item, an update to Chapter 9 – Parks, Recreation, and Open Space.
COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS
Commissioner Burress noted it is desirable from the point of view of walkability to have more but smaller parks closer together and that the main obstacle is cost. Population density is a red herring, because it is not a question of increasing total area dedicated to parks, but rather of breaking a fixed area up into smaller pieces. It is actually cheaper to assemble a given amount of land in small pieces than in one contiguous parcel. Therefore the only significant obstacle to a higher standard of walkability is the higher cost per square foot of maintaining and servicing smaller parcels.
Commissioner Eichhorn
· Parks had a survey completed, response was for trails connection of parks which received a high percentage
· Identified 4 major parks with trails to/from and new parking in locations with trail access.
· Parks Department cannot continue to keep up with maintenance and budget
· Community wanted trails to connect.
PUBLIC HEARING
Gwen Klingenberg
· Need for parks to be adjacent to schools. Concern if Schools are not in center of neighborhoods, should be walking distance
· Many parks needed in higher density areas
· Mini-parks should be reinstated if maintenance costs are concern, consider alternative methods such as benefit districts.
Letter from Bob Mikesic in support of ¼ mile radius standard.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress concerned with impacts to handicap persons and distances to parks.
Commissioner Haase concerned with how ½ mile & ¼ mile radius standards compare with other communities.
Fred DeVictor, Director of Parks & Recreation
More communities are going to ½ mile standard, very few have ¼ mile standard.
Commissioner Haase concerned – gathering spaces that are public – might waive park standards where other public spaces are available.
Commissioner Krebs – revision to permit mini-parks in high density areas – seems not to be there.
Commissioner Eichhorn presented examples of how close ¼ mile radius is; 8 parks between 6th/9th Streets and Massachusetts/Maine, and this would be a huge expense.
Commissioner Ermeling
· Need additional language
Commissioner Burress
· Walkability is ¼ mile
· Not going to be retrofitting, but should establish ¼ mile for new development areas.
· Maintenance cost, if organized differently, could affect cost.
Commissioner Harris
· ½ mile distance between, no service radius.
Commissioner Burress
· ADA – equal access only provided by ¼ mile
Commissioner Haase
· Cost information would be helpful
· Supports school/park locations in center of neighborhoods
· Defer decision until information on maintenance costs are available, but based on cities organized to deal with small parks.
· If costs for ¼ mile standard are equal to or less than ½ mile – should consider for social benefit.
Commissioner Krebs
· In low density neighborhood, not good use of limited resources.
· Allowance for mini-parks in higher density areas.
· New development paying way for parks, new development wouldn’t pay the same for maintenance
· Argument is that there is a substantial cost differential, ask the Parks Director if they can provide additional information on costs
Fred DeVictor
· Additional windshield time, travel time to get to smaller parks, unload and load equipment.
Commissioner Ermeling
· Cost to community for persons to have everyone drive places, deferral or ¼ mile.
COMMISSION ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Haase to defer and request additional information on cost difference for maintenance and return item to Planning Commission.
Motion approved 5-3, with Commissioners Jennings, Eichhorn & Krebs voting against.
PC minutes 01/25/06
ITEM NO. 16: CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO HORIZON 2020 – CHAPTER 8 (TRANSPORTATION) (BA)
CPA-2005-01: Receive comments and revisions from City and County Commissions and consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to Horizon 2020, Chapter 8 – Transportation.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Ahrens introduced the item, an amendment to Horizon 2020 to update the Transportation Element (Chapter 8) to make it consistent with the comprehensive transportation plan Transportation 2025. This amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission at the April, 2005 meeting at the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plans Committee (CPC). A draft updated chapter was considered by the Planning Commission in May, 2005 and was referred back to the CPC for further revisions. Planning Commission recommended approval in September, 2005, and forwarded the chapter to the governing bodies. The updated chapter was considered by the Lawrence City Commission and Douglas County Commission on Oct. 18 and 19, 2005, respectively. Both governing bodies voted to return the chapter to the Planning Commission. The City Commission requested that the Planning Commission address issues with the Major Thoroughfares Map. The County Commission requested that the Planning Commission address issues with the Major Thoroughfares Map and revise text language to add language that addresses county road terminology and differentiates where there are separate requirements for Lawrence vs. Douglas County.
Staff, working with the Board of County Commissioners and the Douglas County Engineer, revised the chapter to reflect County road terminology and to identify where there are separate City and County standards or requirements. The Major Thoroughfare Map was revised to reflect the proposed County road classification system. At their January 18, 2006 meeting the Board of County Commissioners requested the Planning Commission to consider the amended chapter. The draft chapter was revised to incorporate comments received from the Douglas County Commission and to revise the Major Thoroughfare Maps to reflect the proposed Douglas County road classification system. Proposed changes are shown in the chapter with highlighted and strike-through sections. The Major Thoroughfare Maps have been revised to reflect the proposed Douglas County road classification system.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commissioners agreed with changes to make the chapter reflect county road terminology and policies and to separate different policies and standards for Lawrence and Douglas County. Wording change was suggested for Policy 7.1.b to state that sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the street, period. Next sentence should state “Sidewalks should be constructed...”. Commissioner Ermeling stated that the Major Thoroughfares Map should be revised to show Peterson Road extended. Staff asked what the western terminus should be. Commissioners decided that Peterson Road should be shown extended from Folks Road westward to E 800 Road.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion by Commissioner Eichhorn, second by Commissioner Harris to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to Horizon 2020, Chapter 8 – Transportation and forward it to the City and County Commissions for approval with the following revisions:
1. Policy 7.1.b. revised to state “… sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the street. Sidewalks should be constructed wider than standard widths…”.
2. Major Thoroughfare Map corrected to remove the incorrect link shown on Franklin Road between 31st Street and South Lawrence Trafficway.
3. Major Thoroughfare Map revised to extend Peterson Road as a Principal Arterial from Folks Road westward to E 800 Road.
Motion carried 9-0.
ADJOURN: 12:05 a.m.