PC Minutes
02/22/06
ITEM NO. 10: ADOPTION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE, NOVEMBER 11, 2005 EDITION
TA-10-05-04: Pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. Chapter 12, Article 7, consider making a recommendation on the adoption of “Development Code, November 11, 2005 Edition,” enacting a new Chapter 20 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, establishing comprehensive zoning regulations and other land use regulations. The “Development Code, November 11, 2005 Edition” is a general and complete revision of the City’s existing zoning regulations and affects all property within the corporate limits of the City of Lawrence, Kansas. The “Development Code, November 11, 2005 Edition” is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth in this notice. Copies of the “Development Code, November 11, 2005 Edition” are available for review at the Office of the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Department, City Hall, 6 E. 6th Street, Lawrence, Kansas. The “Development Code, November 11, 2005 Edition” is also available at www.lawrenceplanning.org. TA-10-05-04 and Z-10-49-04 are companion and related items for public hearing at the February 22, 2006 meeting. (These items were referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Commission at their meeting on February 1, 2005.)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said staff reports were given to the Planning Commission for Item No. 10 and 11 related to the development code and the zoning map. She said in the Planning Commission packet were letters from Jeff Morrow, Affordable Housing Associates, suggesting modifications to the code that encouraged affordable housing development in Lawrence, and a letter from Lexi and Jim Selvig stating their interest in owning a bed and breakfast and expressing their desire to testify on behalf of the proposed modifications to the bed and breakfast section.
Thursday, at study session, the Planning Commission received a number of communications and a letter from John Naramore regarding property at 9th and New Jersey requesting either alteration of the development code to a different zoning classification than CS, or to broaden the allowed uses in CS.
Staff also received a letter from Sarah Hill Nelson who represented owners at that same intersection and other properties with similar concerns. She said what staff had found was that some of the limited manufacturing uses today, allowed in C-4, would not necessarily be allowed in the CS district, so broadening one of those category definitions to encompass those uses that were previously permitted might need to be looked at.
An email from Patricia Sinclair requested that the development code require all homeowners be notified of rezoning requests rather than neighborhood associations, and expressed her desire that the development code not allow exceptions to the limitations on successive petitions. Ms. Stogsdill noted that the requirement to notify neighborhood associations was related to site plan approval because site plan approval would no longer be a Commission item, but an administrative action. The action to approve a site plan would also go to neighborhood associations. There was no requirement to notify neighborhood associations on rezoning requests although staff typically did notify those associations because they were included on the distribution list for all of the Planning Commission agendas.
There was also an email from Ms. Sinclair opposing the rezoning of the RS-2 homes in the Barker neighborhood to RS-5, which was related to Item No. 11.
A letter from the League of Women’s Voters requested that Section 20-534, Accessory Dwelling Units, be reworded or clarified in expressing support for the proposed owner/occupancy requirement for one of the dwelling units.
A memo was also received from the Planning Commission’s ad hoc committee regarding proposed standards for retail impact studies. Also, they received a memo from the Recycling and Resource Conservation Advisory Board informing them of their intent to propose additions to the development code after they met in March. A letter was also received from Ray Davis, Co-President of West Hills Homes Association discussing the RMG zoning classification suggesting they might consider an RMG-1 and RMG-2 based on the fact that those were two different locations. The Greek houses were located in neighborhoods with different design characteristics.
There had been a memo from staff received related to the additional text that legal counsel, Steve Chinn drafted. There were three different locations where there was specific reference that redrafted text would be provided.
Ms. Stogsdill said she had conversation with a property owner who owned a number of different properties; several properties that were commercial non-conforming uses in residential districts, and several that were apartment developments. There were concerns about whether those uses would still be permitted in the new development code. She said there was discussion that the existing non-conforming commercial uses such as the laundromats at 19th and Barker and 19th and Louisiana could be potential candidates to be rezoned to a CN-1 District, which was the inner-neighborhood commercial district in terms of lot size. This might be something they would chose to direct staff to look at; existing commercial properties that were non-conforming throughout the City, and come back at some date with a recommendation.
The RM-3 properties that rezone would convert to RM-32 zoning. RM-3 zoning today would allow theoretically 43 dwelling units to the acre. It would always be limited by parking and setbacks, but those would convert to RM-32. There would be some non-conforming properties that would be created through that conversion, because if there was a fairly small lot with an 8-plex or 6-plex, there might not be enough lot area specifically to meet that RM-32. There would be some non-conforming uses created through that conversion and properties that were currently zoned RO-1 which again would have the theoretical maximum density of 43 dwelling units per acre. Those together with RO-1A, which was 21 units to the acre, both convert to the RMO district and that was going to be capped at 22 units per acre. Again, there could be some isolated properties that would become non-conforming, and they had discussed what those non- conforming issues were and what was provided in the code.
There would also be some additional comments from the League of Women Voters. The League still had four issues after reviewing the staff report, since the staff report was not provided to the public with a lot of time to comment by the deadline. There were issues related to detached dwellings in RS districts to big box retail being permitted in the CS (Commercial Strip District). Issues about buffer areas and scale and massing and building type that would be addressed.
Ms. Stogsdill also indicated she had a couple of conversations with Commissioners about specific questions and she would go through any questions, from the Commission if needed.
The staff report for Item 10, tried to familiarize the Commission with the process staff had been going through for quite a number of years, and that some of the members of the Planning Commission in 2004 were involved in, but because there were several new Commissioners since November 2004, staff felt it was important to provide a history of where this document had been. In 2005, the City Commission directed staff to retain legal counsel trying to address a number of issues that had been brought up from various members in the community. Staff spent from February through November 11th, and has continued to address issues. A number of those issues staff highlighted were major changes from the November 2004 draft and were listed on pages 3 – 5 of the staff report. Modeling on the staff report that was presented in 2004, staff provided a table of what staff believed were revisions that clarified text or corrected an inconsistency between sections for the Planning Commission to consider.
Commissioner Burress asked about notifying neighbors concerning site plans.
Ms. Stogsdill said there was a requirement to notify property owners that were adjacent to the site plan being submitted, except for minor alterations that would be administratively approved, but notice as required on substantial changes.
Commissioner Burress asked if neighborhood associations received notice from rezonings.
Ms. Stogsdill said she was not certain where Ms. Sinclair had gotten the impression that rezoning required notification to associations. State law required notice to property owners within 200 feet and that requirement was also in the new code.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, introduced Steve Chinn, partner with Stinson, Morrison, and Hecker. He said Mr. Chinn had been involved with City staff over the past year and had been retained to take a look at the development code and provide recommended changes. Those changes resulted in the November 11th draft that was published for this hearing.
Mr. Corliss asked Mr. Chinn to explain what his work entailed concerning planning codes so the Planning Commission would have an appreciation of his background in that area.
Mr. Chinn, Chair of the Public Law and Finance Division, for the Law Firm of Stinson, Morrison, and Hecker, headquartered in Kansas City, said they had 350 lawyers located from Phoenix to Washington DC and across the United States in nine different offices.
He said he had been practicing law for 32 years, exclusively representing public sector entities on land use related issues, such as how a community could grow and how to finance growth. He assisted cities in drafting entire codes or specific provisions to codes. He said he was retained by this City in a limited fashion, but it had expanded. He said the original engagement was to assist the City in addressing specific comments within this community on the February 2004 draft. He said the code before the Planning Commission was not a total rewrite, but was amended to address specific issues that were raised by different constituents within the community.
He said he had an opportunity to work on the majority of the provisions that existed within the code, and he had become somewhat familiar with the development code although it was not his product. He said this had been a very collaborative process, and he had taken the lead on some issues. In many instances there was a lot of studies done in order to make some determinations.
One of the main issues initially raised was the non-conforming use provisions, Article 15 of the February draft. He said he took the lead on doing the analysis on that draft. They decided that he would go through and identify five or ten of the most recently adopted codes of the United States, and review their non-conforming use provisions to determine what, if any thing in those provisions, were innovative that might be used in the City of Lawrence. They found that most current non-conforming use provisions were a lot stricter than what was on the books in the City of Lawrence when they first started, but they did make some modifications to try and address some of the concerns that had been articulated within the community.
He said they had a good draft and were responsive to a lot of the concerns that had been raised by individuals within the community and he believed the City had a product that would serve the community well, understanding that those types of codes were always a work in progress. He said the staff report reflected some issues that still needed to be refined, even in the November 11th draft.
Mr. Corliss said he wanted to speak about the possible actions that the Planning Commission might want to take. The item came before the Planning Commission pursuant to the state law that allowed text amendments to be made to the zoning code. In this case an entirely new zoning code was being enacted and a corresponding zoning map. Staff published the November 11th document with the intent that, at this time, the Planning Commission would conduct a public hearing on that document.
The Planning Commission received from staff a number of recommendations that further refined and improved the document. It was their opinion, that because of the quantity of the changes and to some extent, the quality of the changes that were being suggested, one of those changes was the retail market analysis issue that he helped the subcommittee work on. There was a procedural issue that would need to be dealt with depending on the number of changes that the Planning Commission wanted to make. Obviously, one of those actions could be to recommend approval of the November 11th draft and make that a recommendation to the City Commission. If the Planning Commission wanted to make a number of amendments to that code, a hearing would need to be conducted on that revised code because that code was not advertised for this evening’s hearing. One analogy was that if the Planning Commission wanted to gut the entire document and substitute a smart code, at this time, it could not be done because that was not what was advertised. He said it was a judgment call as to the number of changes that they would recommend as to whether or not a separate hearing was needed. It was his and Mr. Chinn’s opinion that if the changes were minor such as of a typographical nature, that would not be a problem, but if there were major substantive changes, a hearing would need to be conducted on all of those text amendments and publish that hearing accordingly. He said they would need to discuss how best to get that document adopted. One option was to deny, send the denial to the City Commission and have a hearing on a further refined document that took all the changes that the Planning Commission recommended, and a hearing would take place.
Another option was to approve the November 11th draft with the understanding that it would take effect prospectively in the future such as on June 1 or July 1, which was something that needed to be discussed, particularly at the City Commission level, for implementation. A hearing would take place on those additional changes at the Planning Commission’s April meeting, and those changes would catch up with the revised document, which would make that document complete.
He said he did not want to add confusion to the procedures, but the Planning Commission’s action was somewhat akin to the use of the lesser change table where a certain zoning had been published and they were allowed to decrease its density pursuant to that lesser change table. He said it was not allowed to take an RS-2 zoning matter and suddenly decide that the zoning would be PCD. He said the Planning Commission was not allowed, to take the November 11th draft and make substantial changes to that code and recommend the document move forward.
Commissioner Riordan asked if what Mr. Corliss was saying that there was a proposed revision table for the development code. He asked if those revisions were within the scope of what the Commission could recommend.
Mr. Corliss stated it was staff’s opinion that because of the quantity of those changes, the Planning Commission could not amend the November 11th draft and make a recommendation of approval with those changes. They wanted to know what changes the Planning Commission wanted. He said this was a valuable hearing to determine what items the Planning Commission wanted in response to public comment and response to discussion.
Commissioner Riordan said the Planning Commission could pass the document as written, recommend further substantive changes that could be done in a way that would be allowed, and they would catch up with the other hearings when they were adopted at a later date.
Corliss said that was an alternative. He said the Planning Commission could keep the draft code and not make a recommendation to proceed until the entire document was seen. He said one of the reasons for denial was because of all the changes that needed to be made. He said they wanted that document initiated at the hearing and the soonest hearing would be in April.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if it would be normal for a body to continue adding text amendments to a document that had been passed previously to make it better through the course for how many decades that document might be kept.
Mr. Corliss said at the mid-month study session he tried to admonish the Planning Commission they needed to make recommendations to change the code. He said there needed to be more text amendments in his opinion. He said if they decided that the November 11th document was generally good, but they wanted to have those other additional clarifying changes/corrections and whatever they wanted to do with the Retail Market Analysis; they needed to decide how that analysis played in because that was one of the more large substantive issues that he was not certain that had unanimity of opinion. The Planning Commission could proceed with the November 11th draft code and then the text amendments could catch up or they might want to have for the sake of clarity, the entire document changed and have that entire document the subject of their April Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Eichhorn said it would be folly for the Planning Commission to continue keeping this draft code until that code was perfect.
Mr. Corliss said he believed so. He said perfection was a great goal, but he was certain there would be changes in text amendments that had an appropriate consequence or collateral consequence that could not be seen at this time. He said that was not an excuse for trying to get the best document possible, but at some point, in his opinion, they would need what was known to the law as resjudicata. They had decided this matter and they were not going to re-debate that aspect, but move on to other aspects that they would debate, essentially narrowing the issues and eventually getting the code before the City Commission for approval.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Dennis Snodgrass, representing landowners at 638 and 640 Arkansas, said the landowners were notified that their properties were going to be downzoned from a C-5 zoning. He said there was an 8 plex that was built on this property and they were assured by staff that the downzoning category would be a conforming use RO-1.
He said a letter was submitted on November 7th to the Planning Office, Mr. Wildgen, Mr. Riordan, and Mayor Highberger, but somehow the owners were lost in the process of notification. The letter submitted indicated that they did not like the idea of downzoning and they new the change was coming in the City Code, but their preference was to wait until the changes took place to see what category they would end up with from their C-5 zoning and then have a discussion about what would be appropriate to downzone their property. That was not the process that took place. This body heard the downzoning request, which he understood was initiated by the City Commission.
Throughout this process they did not receive notification of the outcome of the Planning Commission’s action. Also, they did not receive notification that the City Commission was going to hear the downzoning or once the City acted, as to what was the result of that action. He said they had been assured that the downzoning proposed would be conforming for their use. Therefore, they did not make a fuss about the rezoning. He said one of his partners received a call from staff indicating there was a problem under the new development code in that they would be non-conforming. He said they would have been conforming if nothing had been done, and they could have discussed that matter. Now they were at a point if this went through, the way they were identified for the new category, they would be non-conforming. Given the process they went through, falling through the cracks as staff indicted, did not seem right.
He said he hoped the Planning Commission would reconsider what they were planning on doing with their zoning because he did not think that process was right.
Commissioner Burress asked if this item was related to item 11.
Ms. Stogsdill said this was related to the RO-1 conversion to RMO and the difference in the maximum density.
Commissioner Burress asked what could be done to fix this issue.
Ms. Stogsdill said only areas staff made map changes to was the special purpose base districts that did not have an automatic conversion or the currently RS-2 properties that were less than 7,000 square feet that were mapped to the RS-5. She said the Planning Commission could initiate a rezoning specifically to a different designation for this property for a future hearing or consider a different density for the RMO. She said the densities that staff arrived at for the RSO and RMO were based on looking at what the existing properties were developed at and for the most part, they were not going to create non-conformities, but this property would not have been looked at, since at that time that property was not zoned RO-1.
Commissioner Burress asked if any change would need to be republished and reinitiated.
Ms. Stogsdill said yes. Any change would be a future hearing.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked what was non-conforming. He said was it a lack of the ability to put parking in.
Ms. Stogsdill said it was the lot area per unit. The size of the property was approximately 12,000 square feet. 8 units would need to be approximately 15,000 square feet, so there was not quite enough area to support 8 units at 22 units to the acre.
Commissioner Eichhorn said the maximum would be 6 units or something less than 8 units.
Commissioner Burress said he wanted to state for the record that he thought this issue would be fixed. The only question was how.
Bill Mitchell thanked the Planning Commission for the RMG zoning although 20-205(g) allowed too many objectionable permitted uses to truly protect nearby low density residential districts from incompatible developments. He said 20-205(g) addressed conversion of a Greek housing unit to an economically viable use, but they did not require proof that a real need to convert existed without that, speculators would convert those properties at their dollar-driven whims. Unless RMG parking requirements were changed, they were planning for mid 20th century. A one to one car to resident ratio, plus ten, might be reasonably realistic. There might even be a reality based assessment of all RM parking requirements.
He said staff acted on his suggestion to reduce the footprint of an accessory structure from equal to the principal building to 33% or 50%. Accessory was by definition subordinate; equal to was not subordinate.
He said he was passing on some of his concerns about accessory dwellings and 3,000 square foot lots. He asked if they had reckoned on the increased load on existing sanitary sewers, planning for sewers, or not, seemed to be on the front page these days and because of increased impermeable surfaces and trees cut down on storm sewers.
He said although the idea of mother-in-law units might be a good one, they fear that with the code’s anemic definition of owner and the City’s demonstrated reluctance to enforce most accessory dwellings, they would sooner or later become rentals thus increasing related parking, blight, and crime problems, and ultimately speed up flight. It was suggested that if accessory dwellings would like to be seen in real life, then take a walk past the once nice post-war homes on the west side of the 1000 block of Illinois.
He said he was closing by making one suggestion and asking the Planning Commission to make two additions to the code. The suggestion was to put the document under some editorial scrutiny before it became law in order to eliminate roughly equivalent terms that had crept in as it grew. For example, Greek housing unit/fraternities, home for elderly person’s nursing homes, made for those little technicalities lawyers thrive on 1) owner-occupied overlay districts; and 2) a comprehensive index by which would be an index of all terms with cross references from synonymous terms.
Commissioner Burress asked that Mr. Mitchell provide a written statement of his comments.
Lexi Selvig said the Planning Commission received a letter from her and her spouse, Jim Selvig, dated the 13th February of their interest of owning and operating a bed and breakfast within the City. She said they were pleased to approach the Planning Commission in a positive fashion saying that they were happy to see the proposed changes and they would encourage the Planning Commission to vote in favor of the changes as those changes appeared in the proposal of the new development code.
Betty Lichtwardt, speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters, said she would provide a copy of their letter and suggested changes to staff. She said they appreciated staff’s recommendations for changes in the code, but they had 4 items of concern which were:
i. Uses, building and/or housing types heights, setbacks, and minimum lot sizes.
She said those changes seemed minor, but they would make a major difference in the ability for the Planning Commission to determine the compatibility of uses adjacent to single family uses especially, in terms of scale.
Ray Davis, representing West Hills Neighborhood Association, said they were delighted that the new draft included a classification that specifically spoke to the Greek Houses. He said their agreement with that was not borne of any kind of concern with the fraternities and sororities because they had been reasonably good neighbors.
He said what they recommended in the memo written to the Planning Commission was to ask for the Commission’s consideration for understanding that there was variation in the Greek housing neighborhoods. The best example was the difference between the areas that encompasses West Hills all the way from West Campus Road over to Sigma Nu Place, and how that differs from the cluster of fraternities and sororities in the Oread Neighborhood. What they would like to additionally suggest was that it might be worthwhile in the future to recognize there were different Greek housing communities, and they deserved a little special recognition themselves.
Lastly, they suggested additional setbacks from 5 to 15 feet between residences, as well as some increase in the frontage areas for those properties. Obviously, what they were concerned about was to assure that if there were changes related to the occupancy of those fraternities and sororities, the code gave them the flexibility in terms of maintaining the type of neighborhood that West Hills had been for a considerable period of time.
He said those were the 3 major issues brought to staff, and he would like to mention that staff had been very responsive and very willing to discuss the issues with them.
Doug Brenn, one of the owners of 640 Arkansas, said he had concerns about all the different various properties he owned and how this document affected those properties. He said he understood this was the only public forum he had to formally say he opposed how this affected his properties poorly and he wanted to be on record for that.
He said he had 4 various properties, but his foremost concern was 640 Arkansas because it would be non-conforming. He said in theory, if it had not been downzoned and left alone, this issue would not be a discussion.
He also had concerns about his laundromat at 1900 Barker, which went from a non-conforming property to what he understood would be a non-conforming, non-buildable property, which was in East Lawrence.
He said in discussing this with staff, he understood that was not even considered to change from non-conforming to something positive to where it would fit in right in that new document.
He said his laundromat at 1920 Louisiana would probably go from non-conforming to non-conforming/non-buildable if they proceeded with intersection improvements.
He also had a concern about RM-1 changing if a person had detached homes. He said staff was going to try and clarify if a person had a detached home, that it could be rebuilt as it was.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if Mr. Brenn was notified of prior meetings.
Mr. Brenn said he found out about this meeting today between 2:30 and 3:30 p.m. The lists of all his properties were emailed to staff prior to two or three weeks ago asking what his properties would change to and how they were affected.
John Naramore said he and his brother owned the property at 900 New Jersey. He said they had a printing business at that location until 6 months ago. They sold their business, but not their building, and he had discussed the possibility of putting a food- related business at that location. He said their C-4 zoning would no longer be applicable, and now they would be zoned CS. He said under CS it appeared industrial general was not allowed, but industrial general allowed the production, processing, and assembling, packaging, or treatment of food or non-food products. He said that made him think of caterers, but according to this zoning, catering would not be allowed in that type of zoning.
He said they had a small printing business at that location that had approximately five to seven delivery trucks a day and people coming in and out, but they were not intrusive to the neighborhood.
He said it would be appropriate to include small level food production endeavors in the CS zoning. He said they would like to see that include non-retail, small-scale bottling and brewing. He said if someone wanted to put a bottling/brewing operation in that location where there was no traffic coming in out. He said Ms. Stogsdill suggested that they come up with some guidelines, but they did not have those guidelines.
Commissioner Krebs asked in the current C-4 zoning, what types of food production industries were allowed.
Ms. Stogsdill said there were some limited uses in use group 17, which was low level manufacturing.
Commissioner Krebs asked if Mr. Naramore was requesting would be permitted under the current zoning category.
Ms. Stogsdill said yes. She said, at that time, that type of industry was permitted in C-4 and with the new code she could not find a category that would fit in the CS zoning.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if it was possible to add to the use tables.
Ms. Stogsdill said yes, it was possible to add to the use tables, with a re-notice to publication or to expand one of the definitions of one of the categories.
Sarah Hill Nelson said they would like to make the same request that Mr. Naramore made, which was to continue non-intrusive low-level food manufacturing and production. The suggestion to broaden the use seemed to make sense.
Commissioner Harris asked if there was any way to allow those uses other than allowing it the way they had requested by changing the use.
Jeff Morrow said he had submitted a letter about changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit section. He said in his outline he stated that Accessory Dwelling Units were allowed, but only if a neighborhood adopts an urban overlay conservation district.
Commissioner Burress said that could already be done, the draft code states that.
Mr. Morrow said when looking at old neighborhoods where design standards existed, the best examples of ADU’s ignore the design standards completely and the design standards might be limiting. He said there were various limitations that, if lifted, would be better.
Ms. Stogsdill said she did not have a chance to review everything that Mr. Morrow provided in his letter. She said she believed that the crux of the issue was the owner/occupancy requirement for one of the units, and a statement that they could do this, but there had to be an overlay district before and that was confusing at this point.
Mr. Morrow said some areas allowed administrative approval rather than as proposed. For example, a neighborhood organization could actually impact an individual project. He said with an overlay district, if a neighborhood approved, a person would be “in” and there was not the opportunity for close examination of an individual product. For example, what if there was a drainage problem or a fencing need? If it was an overlay district, the opportunity would be lost to step in and deal with the problem on an individual basis, if it was an allowed use, but that allowed use was ministerial such that it was approved by the director, the director could address the individual ADU.
Commissioner Lawson said one of the previous speakers made the recommendation that the accessory use be limited to some percentage. He asked how Mr. Morrow would respond.
Mr. Morrow said the existing size requirements as proposed seemed quite adequate. They were subsidiary, secondary, and smaller and there were numerous throttles on their size.
Betty Lichtwardt said she was on the ZAC Committee when this issue came up. The initial idea was for a granny unit and then they discovered that other communities were using this tool to reclaim aging neighborhoods. The owner/occupancy idea was one of the critical ideas, in this issue, because if allowed indiscriminately, then this simply meant that houses would be converted to rental units. The whole idea behind this was to encourage houses not to be converted to rental units, but to allow them for additional income, and make the houses more affordable to people who might not ordinarily be able to afford those houses. She agreed the issue of the overlay district was not one that was useful because it was too restrictive. The two issues that she personally found most needed were the owner/occupancy and the flexibility. She also agreed that living units over a garage should be permitted in addition to the restrictions that were placed in the zoning ordinance. However, if anything of that nature were approved that it should be as a site plan. In an individual structure she could see that the additional unit would not be damaging to a neighborhood.
Marie Stocket, representing a newly formed citizen group called Tree Conservancy, thought it was important to comment on the development code regarding tree protection and tree plantings.
She said trees improve air quality by filtering pollution, giving off oxygen, and cooling the air. Cooling the air also was related to energy conservation which was very important in the summers, helped reduce noise, increase economic stability because cities with trees attract businesses and increase home and property values. Trees improve personal health by reducing stress of city life, and enhance wildlife through providing habitat for birds and other animals. They protect against soil erosion and they also increase the general aesthetic value of the city.
Regarding the proposed code, she was impressed with the vision outlined for the city in the code. There was language like preserving environmental resources and an emphasis on native plants and also preserving the city’s heritage and protecting and adding to the urban forest that definitely fell in line with those goals.
Regarding protecting existing trees, they did feel there was a need for stronger language to protect significant trees. For example, in the code regarding the development site plan that required trees considered significant must be listed on the site plan. She said they would like to see that go further, such as someone would need permission from the City to remove existing significant trees. If a tree was removed, even with a permit, there would be mitigation for the loss to the community. It could be in the form of planting new trees in its place.
As incentives went, they would like to increase incentives and were pleased to see an incentive in the code providing a 3 to 1 ratio credit for required tree plantings. She said they would like to improve that by possibly adding credits as tree sizes increased.
She said they were disappointed to see there did not seem to be any disincentives for cutting down trees, and they would like to see more discouragement of cutting trees down. Getting permission from the City and requiring mitigation could be a form of disincentive.
She said they recommended strong protections for Champion and Heritage trees. A Champion tree would be one of the oldest types of tree in the state, and a Heritage tree would be a tree that was 20 inches in diameter. Also, strong protection was needed for mature trees and other historically significant trees as well.
Regarding tree plantings, their philosophy with the Tree Conservancy was “the more the better.” If they could make more requirements for trees, they would love that because they were a benefit to this community. For example, in buffer yards, there was a tree and shrub requirement. They asked that more emphasis be put on trees and less on shrubs because trees had such a tremendous benefit to the environment as opposed to a shrub.
Regarding tree spacing, the current proposed requirements were a space of 40 feet between trees. They suggested 30 feet would provide a better canopy for the city
There was a growing concern about the tendency to over plant male species because many people believe it could be a cause of allergies and definitely aggravate allergies. She said they would like to see some incentive for planting some female trees. Planting female trees were important because they provide food for urban wildlife and people and went along with the vision conveyed in the code to preserve the city’s heritage and to enhance the urban forest.
In closing, she stressed that trees play such an important role in this community and trees definitely had an impact on this community as a whole.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress asked Ms. Stocket to send a written list of recommendations.
Commissioner Lawson said he was curious about Mr. Snodgrass’ question.
Mr. Snodgrass said the concern was if their property was damaged between now and when things were fixed what would happen. What was the change regarding 60%.
Ms. Stogsdill said this related to non-residential/non-conforming uses. Non-residential properties damaged less than 60% could be rebuild. She said if the property was residential, it could always be rebuilt.
Mr. Snodgrass asked if that was residential of any type.
Ms. Stogsdill said yes.
Mr. Snodgrass said having an 8-plex was not a problem and they would be able to rebuild as it was even if it was non-conforming.
Ms Stogsdill said Mr. Snodgrass would still need to meet parking and setback requirements.
Mr. Snodgrass said then the structure would not be able to be built under the new zoning.
Ms. Stogsdill said it would go to the BZA to ask for parking or setback variances.
Commissioner Lawson indicated Commissioner Burress had given awful strong assurances that Mr. Snodgrass would not need to worry and that he would be taken care of.
Mr. Snodgrass said they did everything they could to cooperate as far as they knew.
Commissioner Riordan said he would like the Planning Commission to conceptualize rather than specifically discuss some of the things that had been discussed at this point on how they were going to attack this issue. Taking recommendations that Mr. Corliss had given to the Planning Commission and working on those recommendations seemed to be the most logical sequence to start with.
Commissioner Burress said he was not prepared to work through all the details proposed at this time. He said he would like staff responses to all of those detailed proposals. He asked staff to make a list of those proposals to tell the Planning Commission which ones staff agreed with and those posing policy questions that staff could not take a position on.
He said when the Planning Commission worked through that list, there would be a bit of an issue because they would need to coordinate it with the rest of this plan. He said one possibility to keep in mind was they could continue to the next mid-month meeting and work through the list and take action at that time.
Commissioner Riordan said one of the recommendations was to pass this issue onto the City Commission stating this was basically a good document that required modification, hold meetings in April, and answer questions that Commissioner Burress referred to. He would like to do something positive with this item, but he was not particularly worried that if they adopted it and sent it on, that they could not come back with modifications that were necessary and appropriate based on the comments tonight. He said it would be reasonable for the Planning Commission to consider adopting this document and sending it on and at the same time specific revisions could be advertised, acted on the legal way.
Commissioner Eichhorn said he enthusiastically endorsed that tact.
Commissioner Haase said he thought it made sense to pass this item with the recommendation that it not be implemented until they had sufficient time to work through all the proposed changes, and every change would need to stand on its own merits, there would be deadline, but asked what would be the reasonable period of time to stipulate that it not be enacted until there was sufficient time for notice of public hearing.
Mr. Corliss said it would be helpful to have some Planning Commission discussion about the changes that had been suggested. He said there were some changes that might become major policy issues, such as the lady advocating for additional tree conservancy. It did not have particular language, but it had a number of ideas that it would be appropriate for staff to respond to, which would probably be a multi-week, if not a multi-month, endeavor to review something like that issue.
Staff could get some idea on Planning Commission views, as well as the issues about some of the map changes that were heard. Clearly, some of the items that Ms. Stogsdill had already responded to regarding the concerns voiced by the League of Women Voters, were before the Planning Commission and should be discussed.
He said he liked the idea of a prospective June 1, 2006 effective date with the understanding the Commission would go through those items in March. Staff could publish for the April Planning Commission meeting more specific text amendments based on an adoption of the November 11th draft. The Planning Commission would deal with those items at their April Planning Commission meeting, so the City Commission could consider those changes in May and the changes would be effective with a June 1 or even July 1 date to allow additional time. The value was that the Planning Commission could say they were willing to operate off of the development code, the November 11th document, and they would make all of the changes off of that document. He said it really depended on the Planning Commission’s comfort level with the entire document.
Commissioner Lawson asked why they needed to do that as opposed to forwarding on with a recommendation of approval with the expectation of treating this document as a document that the Planning Commission could make modifications in due course. He asked why there was a need to send the document forward with a fairly unclear degree of expectation of it actually coming together.
Commissioner Burress said an example would be the controversial language on the retail studies. He would not want the current language to go into effect.
Commissioner Lawson asked for clarification. He said Mr. Corliss stated they had the opportunity through use of text amendments to make modifications to the entire document at any time.
Mr. Corliss said that was correct. In response to the question about why having an effective date out there would allow the Planning Commission to make additional changes, as identified in Ms. Stogsdill’s memorandum. There were at least 7 pages of changes that staff would like to see made to the document that were clarifying and corrected typos. The volume and quantity was such that they needed to publish to make sure notice was made to the public so they knew about all of those changes. Some of those changes were substantive and some were more typographical in nature. He said that was the value of moving the document on was that they would be focusing on making changes to that and endorsed its general policy directions. He said they now needed to clarify those things and the City Commission needed the Planning Commission’s help in setting an effective date far enough out so staff could make those changes pursuant to law.
Commissioner Lawson asked if Mr. Corliss thought the City Commission would be receptive to the delayed effective date.
Mr. Corliss said the City Commissioners made it clear to staff that they wanted to get the development code adopted. The City Commission was not interested in rushing the staff and the Planning Commission who were actually doing the work, but the City Commission wanted to get it adopted so they could move on to a number of other things that were related to the development code.
He said that at some point the issues about the ADU’s and tree conservancies were very valuable issues, but they needed more in-depth studies as opposed to holding the document until those changes could be made.
Commissioner Ermeling said if they approved this document and sent it forth with an idea of when it might be enacted, she asked how that affected the Planning Commission in their decision making and applying any portion of that document to upcoming review of development.
Mr. Corliss said as the Planning Commission would handle items in April, May, and June, if it was effective July 1, it would not affect the review. There was a pipeline provision about how they handled those transition items. Applications submitted prior to the development code effective date would be processed according to the old code.
Commissioner Riordan said he thought it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that it was a good document and they could send the document forward. There were some significant modifications that needed to be made, and putting a deadline on the Planning Commission so they could get those done was good. It was important for the public to know this document would be done at a certain time. He said these would not be the last text amendments or changes in the document, but these were the most reasonable and doable changes within that time period. He suggested moving this document on and setting the deadlines.
Commissioner Krebs asked if the Planning Commissioner were to see all of the issues that had been discussed at their next mid-month meeting, would they be able to get whatever changes they wanted to see on the April Planning Commission agenda. She asked about the deadline for the April Planning Commission.
Ms. Stogsdill said the deadline was March 1st and the Planning Commission’s study session was March 8th. She said staff did not publish or send the legal notice to the paper immediately after the deadline, so there was a little bit of wiggle room. They would need to have something to the newspaper about mid-March. She said what they had always tried to do was have those documents posted for a month before the meeting, and clearly those minor revisions in the staff report had only been out there for a week. She said all the text would need to be revised by the middle of March to have it out there long enough.
Commissioner Riordan asked if they should stipulate at this time a third meeting, if necessary, to get that proposal completed.
Ms. Stogsdill said it was always better to identify a meeting, block the meeting on calendars, and be able to put that meeting in a legal notice if they thought an additional meeting was a possibility.
Commissioner Riordan said with the volume of proposed changes, his suspicion was a special meeting would probably be warranted.
Commissioner Burress asked Commissioner Riordan if it was a special meeting to consider the current changes.
Commissioner Riordan said to set a date aside that if the Planning Commission ran out of time with the Monday/Wednesday concept, they would go to the third date so the public would be aware.
Ms. Stogsdill said it would be helpful that any of the things that had been identified either in the letters that were received last week or in the staff report that the Planning Commission had some significant opinion on, to let staff know if they needed to be looking at alternate language. She said she realized that the Planning Commission heard a lot at this time and did not have time to absorb all of that information, but she asked that the Planning Commission not put this off for two weeks.
Commissioner Riordan asked if it would be reasonable to suggest the Planning Commission inform staff of any changes by Friday.
Ms. Stogsdill said she would like feedback tonight through Commission discussion.
Commissioner Burress asked about notifying neighbors.
Ms. Stogsdill said that according to statute, all neighbors were notified 200 feet around every zoning request.
Commissioner Burress said he agreed with the League that accessory dwelling units should be owner occupied. In terms of ADU design standards, he was willing to consider other changes; no position on RMG; wanted a solution for non-conforming use created; the tree protection was a longer issue; index was critical; and he wanted feedback on the LWV issues.
Mr. Corliss said they would have an index of the development code once it was adopted. He asked how quickly that would be for the Planning Commission’s consideration of the document to approve. He said an index did not need to be legally adopted because it was not law, it was just a reference.
Commissioner Harris said she agreed with Commissioner Burress and the things he requested; that staff look at the request by the West Hills Association for having two designations for RMG based on the character of the neighborhoods; that staff look into the request by the business owners in East Lawrence for adding that use to their new zoning for food or some way to address their concerns; she did not like the way the language for the description of the purpose of the RMG designation was worded, and proposed different wording that she could email staff for consideration; that staff propose a way to address the concerns of Mr. Snodgrass and Mr. Brenn on the property on Arkansas; she agreed that trees were a concern and they should look at that issue at a future time, but not right now; and, she agreed that an index would be very helpful and the idea of an index could be done in the future, but not right now.
Commissioner Erickson said basically she agreed with all that had been said, especially protecting existing trees; she especially wanted to do something about the New Jersey properties designation of CS and suggested including some of the food endeavors; and, she would like staff’s opinion about taking out the big box retail on CS zoning.
Commissioner Ermeling said she also followed the recommendations that were made ahead of her; she would like to bring up a future endeavor about the area of outdoor lighting; and, she had a deep concern regarding the impact analysis and the definition thereof or what was to be inside of that retail impact study.
Commissioner Riordan said he would like to see parking addressed with higher standards; the bed and breakfast was fine; the attached structures were good; he would like some ability to have changes as suggested for small food processing to allow people who did catering; better definitions, specifically commercial and retail space; there was a statement that said “good transportation access,” but he had no idea what that meant and he would like to see those defined; regarding towers (20-529(2)(v), he would like to see the words, “shall be constructed” when talking about the ability to place a monopole instead of guyed wire; regarding antenna (20-529(7)(iv) it stated that you do not need to put 2 or 3 antennas on if there was some electromagnetic interference. He thought the word “excessive” would be a good word to add; regarding (20-529(9)(iv) the base of the structure shall be designed and built to add expansion at a later date. One of the big reasons they could not extend some of these if it was just built for one was because it was not built to be expandable and they should require them to be expandable if they only put one on there to accommodate at least three. Also, he would like someway in the code if they had something that was constructed that was supposed to be 10 feet in between and it was not 10 feet in between that there be some punishment because they were reluctant to tear down an entire building because its 12 or 24 inches across and at the same time there was nothing reasonably to do to provide that if they just did not follow their plans, they could go ahead and do it. He said he would like to see something within the code penalized them in a monetary way so that they would not do that.
Mr. Corliss said staff had struggled with that zoning code enforcement. He said it was a significant issue, but he did not know if they would come up with a solution in the next three weeks. He said it was his desire to find out which suggestions they could proceed with and which ones required further study.
Commissioner Riordan said he thought the Planning Commission should study the zoning code enforcement. He said he did not want it to get in the way of the codes, but it was something that had bothered him for quite awhile.
Commissioner Krebs suggested extending their mid-month meeting to 3 hours to discuss the items addressed during this meeting except for the tree conservancy as well as retail impact studies because that was a bigger policy issue.
Commissioner Haase said the drainage study recommended no further development occur in North Lawrence that impacted the floodplain until system improvements were in place. The City’s current floodplain regulations exempt properties that were within the city limits when they passed that particular part of the code so it would be a very simple text change to address this issue raised by that study. He said it was clearly a recommendation that came out of a $280,000, study and he thought they should take it out.
Mr. Corliss said he thought Commissioner Haase should make that recommendation to the City Commission and proceed separately.
Ms. Stogsdill said all of the text in the article for floodplain had to go through DWR for review so that idea would be a good thing to identify as working on soon, but not in the next two weeks.
Commissioner Eichhorn said he was enthusiastic regarding accessory dwelling units being owner/occupied. The retail studies were obviously of great importance, as was the lighting and trees as well.
He asked if there was a possibility of producing a handout outlining the process in making text amendments.
Commissioner Lawson said he would like to invite the Selvig’s back again, the proposed modification of the code in owning a bed and breakfast.
COMMISSION ACTION
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Krebs, to approve the November 11, 2005 Edition of the development code, with the condition that it not be enacted until July 1, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Haase said most of the Planning Commissioners had serious issues with some part of what they were recommending. He said he would personally hate to see this code go into effect before they had sufficient time to address those concerns and hopefully come forward with text amendments that addressed those concerns.
Commissioner Harris said she would like to make a friendly amendment that the Planning Commission intended to make some text changes to the document before it was enacted in July.
Ms. Stogsdill asked if they were recommending the November 11th draft as published.
Commissioner Riordan said yes.