LAWRENCE DOUGLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMISSION
March 2006
Meeting Minutes
_______________________________________________________________________
March 13,
2006 – 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners present: Riordan, Haase, Burress, Eichhorn, Krebs, Harris, Jennings, Ermeling, Erickson and Lawson,
Staff Present: Stogsdill, Patterson, Pool, Day, Miller, and Ahrens
_______________________________________________________________________
MINUTES
It was explained that the minutes of the February meeting were not yet complete for review. Also, the provided January minutes were still in a rough draft form and Staff recommended the Commission comment on them and return them to Staff for continued work.
Burress requested the following revisions to the draft January minutes:
The Commission generally agreed that it would be suitable to approve the draft January minutes, with the understanding that additional clarifying revisions would be made.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Harris to approve the January 2006 Planning Commission minutes as discussed.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
CDC: The committee met on March 7th to continue discussions about neighborhood design. Then Commissioner Ermeling stated the committee is hopeful that the City may provide them with monies to obtain a consultant for assistance with a parallel code.
PCMM: The committee reviewed all of the public comment received on the proposed new development code. Working with Staff, the committee created a list of proposed revisions for consideration.
TAC: The committee discussed the need for committee bylaws to define its makeup and purpose. TAC also recognized that TIP proposals from Baldwin City had been mistakenly left out of the Douglas County TIP. The Planning Commission would be considering amendments to the TIP this evening to correct that error.
T2030: The committee further refined what would be an interactive forum to receive input regarding a long-range transportation plan. They also discussed future objectives, such as a diagnostic review of the current long-range transportation plan. This information would be brought back before the full Commission. It was noted that the T2030 Committee was growing in size, to include additional City Staff, as well as representatives from KDOT and the other incorporated cities of Douglas County. It was verified that additional members of the TAC Committee should be appointed by the Planning Commission Chair.
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 3 – Amendments to the TIP
Items 11A-11D: Zoning Overlay District between 8th & 9th Streets and New Jersey & Delaware Street Letters of opposition from
E-mail letter from Mark Kaplan in opposition to proposed development.
Letter from William J. Penny, Penny’s Concrete, expressing concern regarding turning radius and maneuvering of his company’s trucks if proposed development is implemented.
E-mail letter from Janet Good, President, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, expressing appreciation of historic preservation of this project, but concern for the neighborhood regarding the impact of the proposed project.
Memo from Staff regarding Downstream Wastewater Analysis for PP-01-04-06
Items 12 & 13 – Subdivision Regulations and Amendments to Art. 6, 7 & 8 of the Zoning Regulations:
Miscellaneous
Multiple letters of varied nature, not associated with any specific agenda item.
EX PARTE / DEFERRALS / ABSTENTIONS
CONSENT AGENDA
It was noted that Items 2A & 2B were deferred prior to the meeting.
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Haase to approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO. 1: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PETERSON ACRES; 2930 PETERSON ROAD (LAP)
FDP-01-02-06: Final Development Plan for Peterson Acres. This proposed residential subdivision contains approximately 4.6 acres. The property is generally described as being located at 2930 Peterson Road. Submitted by Abeln & Associates Architects for the City of Lawrence, property owners of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Haase to approve the Final Development Plan for Peterson Acres, subject to the following conditions:
1. Revision of the Final Development Plan to include the following changes:
a. Replace “Cercis Canadensis” with “Acer Tatarian” in the landscape schedule;
2. Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement;
3. Submittal of recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
4. Filing of the new utility easements by separate instrument and provision of Book and Page numbers on the face of the Final Development Plan;
5. Submittal of public improvement plans to the Public Works Department prior to filing of the final plat at the Register of Deeds Office.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO 2A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WAKARUSA OVERLOOK; WEST OF E 1900 ROAD & SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY (MKM)
PP-01-03-06: Preliminary Plat for Wakarusa Overlook. This proposed one-lot residential subdivision contains approximately three acres. The property is generally described as being located west of E 1900 Road (1057 Highway) and south of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Allenbrand-Drews & Associates, Inc., for Rebecca Thomas, property owner of record.
PC Minutes 3/20/2006
ITEM NO 2B: FINAL PLAT FOR WAKARUSA OVERLOOK; WEST OF E 1900 ROAD & SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY (MKM)
PF-01-02-06: Final Plat for Wakarusa Overlook. This proposed one-lot residential subdivision contains approximately three acres. The property is generally described as being located west of E 1900 Road (1057 Highway) and south of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Allenbrand-Drews & Associates, Inc., for Rebecca Thomas, property owner of record.
Items 2A & 2B were deferred prior to the meeting.
Swearing in of witnesses.
PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO. 3: Amendment of Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (BA)
8:20 p.m. Recess the Planning Commission meeting and convene as the MPO
The University of Kansas is requesting an amendment to the transit element of the 2006-2009 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The proposed project is for the acquisition of 5 busses. The project is being placed in the TIP in the event Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5309 funds become available.
The City of Baldwin City is requesting three projects be amended to the 2006-2009 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The projects are for federal funding under the Transportation Enhancement program for:
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Ahrens introduced the item, a number of proposed amendments to the approved 2006-2009 Transportation Improvements Project (TIP). These revisions were forwarded to the full Commission from the TAC committee. Staff explained that all proposed projects must be included in the TIP to become eligible for Federal funding.
Multiple amendments were proposed by the University of Kansas, as outlined the letter from Jim Long. Among these revisions were several related to a cooperative effort between the University and the City related to public transit.
Mr. Ahrens also referenced several proposals submitted by Baldwin City that were mistakenly left out of the approved TIP.
It was discussed that one of the proposals from Baldwin City requested significantly more funding for a smaller restoration than Lawrence acquired for a similar but larger project in years’ past.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the TIP amendments as presented by Staff.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Riordan spoke about the cooperative efforts taking place between the City and the University to study joint transportation needs and create an effective public transit system. While this system was not yet in place, both parties were dedicated to its creation.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was withdrawn to allow the public hearing to commence.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Harris to approve the Transportation Improvement Program amendments as presented by Staff.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Recess as the MPO and reconvene Planning Commission
PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO. 4: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING AIRSTRIP; 725 N 500 ROAD (PGP)
CUP-01-01-06: Conditional Use Permit request for an existing airstrip located at 725 N 500 Road. Approval of this request would enable the airstrip to be in zoning compliance with Douglas County Zoning regulations. Submitted by Darrell Norris, applicant, for Phyllis Norris, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP to allow the continued use of an existing airstrip located approximately one (1) mile southeast of Lone Star Lake. He described the surrounding area and the dimensions of the airstrip.
The airstrip had been in use for several years without a CUP, and had been brought to Staff’s attention when a telecommunications tower was proposed in the area in 2005. The property owner was at that time informed of his need to obtain a CUP to continue use.
Staff recommended approval of the CUP, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Darrell Norris, applicant, stated no objection to Staff’s recommendation and stood to respond to questions.
It was established that the telecommunications tower approved in 2005 would make it unsafe to use this airstrip only in certain weather conditions. Under FAA regulations, it would be up to the pilot’s discretion whether to use the airstrip when those conditions were present.
Burress discussed relocation of the existing airstrip to the north, so distance it from adjacent properties. It was established that topographic conditions made relocation impractical.
The applicant testified that he had not received any complaints from adjacent property owners at any time since the airstrip began use in 1979.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Lawson, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the existing airstrip at 725 N 500 Road and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO. 5: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR GOOGOLS OF FUN/GOOGOLS OF LEARNING; 4931 W. 6TH STREET (PGP)
UPR-01-01-06: Use Permitted upon Review request to increase child care enrollment from a previously approved maximum of 55 children to a requested maximum of 108 children for Googols of Fun/Googols of Learning, located at 4931 W. 6th Street. No exterior changes to the site are proposed. Submitted by Amy Gottschamer, applicant and owner of Googols of Fun. The Bristol Group is the property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a request for a Use Permitted upon Review (UPR) to allow a maximum of 108 children to be enrolled in day care at the facility. It was noted that this would be in increase from 55 children, as approved as part of the current UPR in June 2004
Staff said the increased enrollment proposal did not involve any changes to the buildings’ exterior or play area. Mr. Patterson said no complaints had been received from other area businesses or residents since the child care center began operation.
Staff recommended approval of the request as presented, subject to conditions outlined in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Amy Gottschamer, owner and applicant, spoke about the “wonderful response” the child care center continued to receive. She said the center had nearly reached its approved capacity and was now seeking approval to increase that capacity with interior renovations. Ms. Gottschammer said the proposed expansion was in response to the communicated needs of the public.
It was verified that the facility was currently approved and licensed for full-time child care.
Ms. Gottschamer responded to questioning that previous Commission concerns about truck traffic near the play area had been addressed with signage and gates. She said the play area and pathway to the play area had been approved by KDHE as more than adequate to meet the outdoor requirements for the proposed 108 children.
There was discussion about how long and when the children were/would be taken to the outside play area.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Lawson to approve the UPR as presented.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Eichhorn stated that he was the “lone hold out” when the current UPR was approved in 2004. He appreciated that the proposal met the regulations, but he explained he would maintain his opposition based on his continued concern about the proximity of a stormwater detention area and a truck delivery lane to the play area.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the Use Permitted upon Review for Googles of Fun/Googles of Learning at 4931 W. 6th Street and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried 9-1, with Commissioners Riordan, Haase, Burress, Krebs, Harris, Erickson, Jennings, Ermeling and Lawson voting in favor and Commissioner Eichhorn voting in opposition.
PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO. 6: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER & EQUIPMENT SHELTER; WEST OF N. MICHIGAN STREET & SOUTH OF I-70 (SLD)
UPR-01-02-06: Use Permitted upon Review request for a 150’ communications tower and equipment shelter, located west of N. Michigan Avenue and south of I-70. Submitted by Selective Site Consultants for T-Mobile Central LLC, applicant. Kansas Turnpike Authority is the property owner of record.
Item 6 was deferred prior to the meeting.
DRAFT PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO. 7: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ABERDEEN ON 6TH STREET; SOUTHEAST CORNER OF W. 6TH STREET & STONERIDGE DRIVE (SLD)
PDP-01-02-06: Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6th Street. This proposed multi-family planned residential development contains 115 proposed apartment units on approximately 9.59 acres. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of W. 6th Street and Stoneridge Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for MS Construction Co., Inc., property owners for record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the item, a preliminary development plan for an area that Staff had been looking at since early 2005. The Staff Report outlined a series of rezonings relevant to this proposal that had taken place on adjacent parcels. The Staff Report also summarized the proposed development as it related to its surroundings and provided clarifying examples of other types of development.
In response to concerns raised consideration of the rezoning for this property, Ms. Day brought attention to the distinction explained in the Staff Report between “buffering” and “transition.”
Staff requested the Commission provide direction on the issue of secondary access to the subject property from the local street, Stone Creek D rive.
Ms. Day described the location and property characteristics and reviewed the previous development applications for the property. She noted that this application concerned only the northern portion of the overall property along 6th Street.
Staff compared this proposal to the Canyon Court PRD as a reference, because Canyon Court is often sited as an example of incompatible multi-family/single-family development mix. Elements examined included building setback, building height, and elements such as multi-story designs, patios and recessed balconies as they related to rear yards of abutting single-family lots. A similar comparison was made to the Parkway Apartments PUD.
Staff discussed the existing and proposed drainage way and referenced concerns expressed by the Director of Public Works regarding drainage in this neighborhood when he met with the Commission in Study Session. It was noted that stormwater run off is currently contained within the drainage easements located along rear yards of the existing single-family lots.
Ms. Day spoke about Winthrop Court, which was constructed as a stubbed street. She identified two storm inlets on this street that would be used for the proposed development and explained how this would impact necessary right-of-way and easement division between the property owner and the applicant upon approval of a Final Plat.
In Staff’s opinion, providing a second access point for residents would be beneficial and was of crucial concern for Emergency Services.
Ms. Day said that, based on Staff’s understanding of Commission direction during the rezoning consideration, the proposal did not provide adequate transitioning within the development. It instead placed the burden of providing transition upon future development or redevelopment of other sections of the overall area, held under the same ownership.
Staff asked the Commission to provide more specific direction for the project, suggested they revisit the topic of density, particularly since the City Commission had approved rezoning with the condition of not more than 12 dwelling units per acre. It was pointed out that the applicant used a significantly different method for calculating density than was typically used. The standard calculation method resulted in a higher density than was claimed by the applicant.
Staff recommended denial of the application, because conditions to bring the proposal into a (Staff) supportable state would be numerous and overly complex.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, and Phil Struble of Landplan Engineering spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Werner said he had believed the applicant and Staff were closer to agreement than he was now to understand from the Staff presentation. He stated for the record that this proposal was significantly different from the Canyon Court PCD and he would like to discourage further comparisons between the two developments. He suggested that Tuckaway or Briarwood would be more suitable for comparison with this application.
Mr. Werner asked the Commission to consider how far this proposal had come from its original submittal. He discussed the modification from office to residential uses, the changes to place multi-family homes along the highway, the elimination of RM-D uses from the proposal, the reduction in density from 15 units per acre (submitted) to 12 units per acre (City Commission approved) and the steps taken to address concerns about back yards lining the gateway entrance.
Mr. Werner described the site plan, noting the use of building exteriors, orientations and parking areas to buffer noise and facilitate pedestrian circulation. He expressed surprise at comments regarding transitioning vs. buffering, saying he did not know of any PRD’s using single-family or even duplexes as a mixed-use element. Additionally, if the land to the south were included in this proposal, he did not think buffering /transitioning would have been raised as an issue. Finally, the development team felt that the proposed back-to-back relationship of single-family uses was generally appropriate.
Mr. Werner addressed the issue of the clubhouse, saying the pools would be used about 3 months out of the year and, even with 400 tenants, would not be utilized by many individuals. The applicant did not think it would be appropriate to “shove the pool next to a neighborhood”, per Staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Werner explained the applicant’s density calculations, which were done based on a deduction of drainage courses from the overall square footage. He then discussed various density potentials based on other housing types.
Mr. Werner said the applicant felt there were still a few issues to be discussed, such as the location of the clubhouse, but he believed this was a good proposal. He added that the applicant decided that secondary access to Stone Creek would be provided once he was told that, without secondary access, all of those buildings would have to be sprinkled to meet fire code.
Mr. Werner responded to questioning that the optional footbridge over the drainage easement was a public improvement element that was shown on preliminary development plans in case it needed to be discussed and possibly eliminated during other planning stages. Several factors would determine whether a footbridge, an industrial bridge, a sidewalk or no connection at all was provided. He said that, if a connection of some type was constructed, it would include handrails for safety.
Staff was asked to address the applicant’s method of calculating density after deducting drainage areas. Ms. Day explained that the Code specifically dictates the reduction of the overall square footage by the amount of the drainage easement. The applicant has, in this case, deducted a larger area identified on his plan as a drainage course.
There was discussion about what steps the applicant would have to take in order to significantly reduce the drainage easement by enclosing the drainage element. This would bring the density calculations of the applicant and Staff into rough agreement and would allow the applicant to develop the units proposed without violating the 12 unit/acre density cap placed by the City Commission. Haase asked which option was preferable: enclosed drainage with conforming density or an open drainage system with a little laxity on density.
It was noted that the lots to the south of the subject area were not developed yet, but were platted for single-family homes. It was suggested that it was important to consider that area as if it were already developed as platted, and noted that the adjacent area was under the same ownership as the subject property.
Haase said it seemed there were a number of issues that could still be cleared up between the applicant and Staff, and that Staff appeared to be asking for direction to help achieve that goal.
Ms. Day commented that, without project-specific direction, Staff typically tried to apply conditions or direction provided for similar development proposals. In this case, the transitioning Staff was trying to accomplish was based on the Commission’s direction in the Legends of KU project, Hutton Farms and the Stonegate Subdivision. Staff felt the Commission had been consistent throughout multiple developments with their direction on building types and transitioning.
Staff requested specific direction on the PUD section of the code that addressed reducing residential acreage to account for major drainage courses.
Mr. Werner pointed out that, although the City Commission revised the Planning Commission’s recommendation to put an overall density cap of 12 units/acre on the entire subject property, that rezoning had not yet been published.
The applicant did not want to place duplexes along the south side of the project, feeling the property was too small for than many different housing types. He suggested two-story duplexes with one-bedrooms on the west side would make a better-looking development. He requested guidance from the Commission about what housing types should be included.
Ermeling said she understood the challenge of mixing housing types, but she hoped to see “something new and different.” She suggested using architecture to make multi-family buildings look like houses, to ease the visual transition to actual single-family development. Mr. Werner responded that this concept had been discussed but the applicant was concerned how this would be received by the City. He verified that proposed elevations of the “big house” concept would be included on the final development plan.
Mr. Werner asked to make it clear that the applicant would prefer not to have the secondary access onto Stone Creek Drive, and could make the project work without this curb cut. However, the Fire Department had the final say in that matter and it appeared that the secondary access would need to be included.
Mr. Werner responded to questions about pedestrian-friendly elements:
5 minute recess
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mark O'Lear, 917 Stone Creek Drive, spoke on behalf of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association. He showed a video of the neighborhood’s stormwater culvert during and following heavy rains in August 2005. He noted that the culvert appeared to fill suddenly, not gradually as the rain continued. The residents were concerned that children playing in the area might be caught unawares.
The neighborhood was also concerned that the culvert was half-full during this rain event. Mr. O’Lear asked if the City was sure the culvert could handle the additional water runoff generated by the proposed development.
Mr. O’Lear said the applicant had stated since the beginning that he did not want anything but two-story buildings and that has been reflected in every plan the neighborhood has seen. Mr. O’Lear said Mr. Werner’s comments tonight seemed to indicate he was being “limited” to two stories by the Commission. Mr. Werner said he did not agree with this interpretation of his comments.
Mr. O’Lear said the Fire Department was not “forcing” the applicant to provide secondary access at Winthrop Court. Sprinkling the buildings and constructing a crash gate was a viable alternative.
Mr. O’Lear said the neighborhood understood this was a difficult piece of ground to work with, but suggested the property owner should have been aware of that fact when he purchased the land and the residents should not be punished for the applicant’s lack of “homework.”
It was established that no neighborhood residents had attended the presentation by the Public Works Director about stormwater in this area. It was generally agreed that this presentation made it clear that development on the subject site would either have no impact on or would slightly improve existing stormwater conditions.
Tim Van Leer, 5213 Branch Wood Court, agreed with Mr. O’Lear’s comments about the secondary access point. He said the applicant claimed the Fire Department was making them provide the secondary access for safety reasons, but opening this point created other safety concerns – specifically increased traffic through a family-oriented neighborhood.
An unidentified speaker living at 913 Stone Creek Drive also agreed with previous concerns about opening Winthrop Drive, noting the City Commission comment that a crash gate would be an acceptable alternative.
The speaker said the combination of single-family, duplex and a church all on one street seemed “odd” for a residential street and did not fit the continuity of the rest of the neighborhood. He asked how this development would look abutting Stone Creek and mentioned past discussions about the need for more-than-the-minimum buffering. He referenced Tuckaway as an example of good buffering and Aberdeen as an example of poor buffering.
The speaker said he understood the market demand for multi-family development, but he agreed with Commissioner comments earlier that the “same old, same old” was getting tiresome. He asked that some creativity be applied to make an aesthetically appealing change.
Corey Lang, 901 Stone Creek, said Staff had been most helpful in answering his questions about this project. He said his primary concern was that it appeared that the tallest buildings were proposed on significantly higher grades, emphasizing their height even more and making them visually intrusive.
Mr. Lang also expressed concern about the added traffic implied by this kind of development, particularly if the secondary access were opened.
Mr. Lang said this development seemed to be trying to include too many incongruous elements into too small a space, but he was afraid they were too far into the development process to do anything about it.
An unidentified speaker at 921 Stone Creek Drive spoke about abutting properties, saying he was concerned that lack of buffering, balconies and grading differences would significantly reduce privacy on individual lots.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Werner clarified his comments about the choice to pursue two-story units, saying that this was his client’s preference, with the understanding that this did not mean a design where the basement was considered the first story.
Mr. Werner said the plans should have been clearer than some sort of access to Stone Creek would be included. However, he stressed that full access was not needed or requested.
It was noted that Phil Struble with Landplan Engineering was available to answer any questions on the storm water, but he (Struble) felt that the Public Works presentation hopefully addressed most concerns.
Mr. Werner responded to questions from the Commission:
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Ms. Day reiterated Staff’s request that the Commission provide direction on the following points:
It was verified that the Commission had a fairly wide scope of ability to condition building, scale, and massing. Staff agreed with the applicant that duplex uses along the entire south side of the property was not a desirable design.
Ms. Day responded to questioning that changing to a four-plex would sufficiently address Staff’s concerns about density. Ms. Stogsdill interjected that substituting a four-plex across the street from the single-family homes still left transition questions about scale and massing, even though the footprint was smaller than currently proposed. She suggested access alternatives for those units.
Mr. Werner responded to questioning that the applicant would prefer to gather more Commission comment on the proposal tonight and return with a revised preliminary development plan. He asked if the item could be deferred for one month. Staff expressed concern that this would not allow adequate time to review the revised plans.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Haase said if the item were not deferred, he might need to recuse himself from the vote because he did not feel capable of making a decision at this time. He did not like to delay the project for two months, but Staff had legitimate concerns.
Haase said the community in general needed to be leaning toward developments of this type, but it needed to be done right and he did not know “how to get there.” He asked if the Commission was prepared to approve the proposal with what would necessarily be a lengthy list of conditions.
Eichhorn said he had reservations about the “large home” concept if it meant using more than two stories, especially abutting the neighborhood. It may fit the Code yet not be the best option.
Eichhorn commented that, if deferred, the applicant should return with detailed elevations showing how the buildings would fit the area in massing scale and style. He also suggested the low-key lighting be considered for the clubhouse.
Jennings said he preferred building continuity, but he did not care for the gradation of densities. He was not sure what could be done to address the neighborhood concerns about views between buildings (re: privacy), which were a continual concern from single-family neighborhoods City-wide.
Ermeling discussed using lighting and landscaping to mitigate the impact of the clubhouse.
Riordan said that, in his experience, intrusive lighting was more bothersome than the issue of second story views. Although having the buildings closer was not ideal, he preferred not moving the buildings.
Harris, alternately, encouraged the applicant to look at moving the building that may be a four-plex further from the road.
Erickson stated support for the two-story four-plex concept, noting that the majority of homes in that area were two stories.
Burress stated support for the following:
Burress said that a church use can generate fairly intense traffic at given times and he did not necessarily agree with the Code that this use was always appropriate in residential zoning districts.
Burress also pointed out that detention ponds were used to lower the peak level of stormwater, not to reduce its flow.
There was discussion about a suitable time frame for deferring the item.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Harris to defer the item to the April meeting.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
There was additional discussion about deferring the motion with an open-ended date. This would allow the applicant to return in one month if possible or in two months if more review was needed.
While the applicant would strongly prefer to keep open the possibility of bring the revised plan to the April meeting, Ms. Stogsdill expressed equally strong concerns about review time and staffing to meet an April meeting deadline.
Eichhorn stated for the record his preference that the Commission not defer the item but take action tonight. Lawson said he did not support the project in its current state but he agreed the Commission should take action tonight. There was discussion about how to form conditions for a possible approval from tonight’s discussion.
Lawson called the question.
ACTION TAKEN
The revised motion on the floor was to defer the Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6th Street to the May 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried 9-1, with Riordan, Haase, Burress, Krebs, Harris, Jennings, Ermeling, Erickson and Lawson voting in favor and Eichhorn voting in opposition.
PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO. 8A: PCD-2 TO PCD-2 (WITH ADDITIONAL ALLOWABLE USES); 5.05 ACRES; NORTHEAST CORNER OF WAKARUSA DRIVE & CLINTON PARKWAY (LAP)
Z-01-02-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 5.05 acres from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District (with additional allowable uses). The property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of Wakarusa Drive and Clinton Parkway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Off-Piste, Inc., property owners of record.
PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO. 8B: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MIRACON PLAZA; NORTHEAST CORNER OF WAKARUSA DRIVE & CLINTON PARKWAY (LAP)
PDP-01-03-06: Preliminary Development Plan for Miracon Plaza. This proposed planned commercial development contains approximate 5.05 acres and proposes a car wash, convenience store, commercial/office buildings, and a restaurant. The property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of Wakarusa Drive and Clinton Parkway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Off-Piste, Inc., property owners of record.
Items 8A & 8B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Pool introduced the item, a request for rezoning to allow additional uses within an approved PCD-2, plus a preliminary development plan to accommodate those additional uses. She described the surrounding zoning and existing uses.
Ms. Pool explained the property was currently restricted to PCD-1 uses, plus athletic clubs from Use Group 15. Use Groups 13 & 14 were currently excluded. Additionally, commercial uses were limited to 12,700 square feet.
Ms. Pool, outlined Staff’s recommendation for denial, based on a determination that the request did not conform to the guidelines set forth in HORIZON 2020. Specifically, the proposal would make the overall commercial square footage for the intersection exceed the maximum set for Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC), and it did not include adequate buffering between commercial and adjacent residential uses.
If the Planning Commission chose to approve the request(s), Staff suggested allowing time for Staff to prepare recommended conditions to apply to the preliminary development plan, and to review the development plan for conformance with the Commercial Design Guidelines.
Ms. Pool said conditions would likely include but would not be restricted to:
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He provided a history of the project to explain how the current development proposal came before the Commission today. In summary, he described how the prior RO-1 zoning was changed to PCD-2 to better suit existing adjacent residential development. Then, in 1998 the Stoneridge Plaza PCD was approved in 1998 with 12,000 square feet of commercial space and 40,000 square feet of office space.
Mr. Herndon said the current office space market was too soft to absorb the approved amount of office space and the applicant proposed converting a portion of the office space to commercial square footage. This conversion would resulting a 1/3 increase in commercial space to 18,000 s.f. and a decrease in office space to 9,000 s.f. Mr. Herndon listed several of the commercial uses proposed for the revised development, including a convenience store with single-bay car wash and five pump islands, a two-story office/commercial building with drive-through bank bays and drive-through service, and a sit-down restaurant.
Mr. Herndon asked that the Commission understand that a slight increase in intensity was suitable on this 5-acre site because of the drainage easement and required peripheral setback. These elements created an adequate buffer, but reduced the developable land to only 60%. Mr. Herndon said this proposal was aesthetically “head and shoulders above” the existing developments on the other corners of this intersection. He also noted that the applicant had been in contact with adjacent property owners and had received no objections.
10:00 p.m. - The meeting was extended by 30 minutes.
Mr. Herndon addressed Staff’s concerns and questions from the Commission:
It was stated for the record that the Comprehensive Plan specifically recommends against expanding commercial uses beyond those already existing at this corner.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENS
There were no additional comments from Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Jennings outlined several concerns than led him to support the proposal:
10:30 p.m. – The meeting was extended 15 minutes
Krebs suggested the applicant try to create a development plan based on currently approved uses and square footage allowances.
Haase said he would like to see a revised proposal that more closely reflected the Commercial Design Guidelines. Ermeling added that there should be a different approach to bring the buildings closer to the street.
Burress said his concern was primarily the proposal to exceed the HORIZON 2020 limit on commercial square footage.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 8A
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Ermeling to deny the rezoning of 5.05 acres from PDC-2 to PCD-2 (with additional allowable uses) and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried 7-3, with Krebs, Ermeling, Burress, Erickson, Haase, Harris and Riordan voting in favor; Eichhorn, Jennings and Lawson voted in opposition.
Item 8B
Motioned by Eichhorn to deny the Preliminary Development Plan, based on a determination that it was unfeasible without rezoning (which was just recommended for denial).
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
The applicant was given an opportunity to comment on the proceedings.
Mr. Herndon asked the Commission to defer the Preliminary Development Plan for two months to discuss alternatives with Staff. This would save the applicant a lot of redundant work in creating an entirely new development plan for a new submission.
There was discussion about Staff’s time frame preference for a potential deferral. Ms. Stogsdill suggested three months would be appropriate for placing the item back on the Commission’s agenda. It was clarified that the applicant could submit revised plans sooner if they were ready.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 8B (con’t)
The motion to deny Item 8B was withdrawn.
Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Harris to defer Item 8B for up to three months.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
MISCELLANEOUS
BUSINESS
There was no additional business to come before the Commission.
11:00 p.m. – recess to Wed. March 15, 2006, 6:30 p.m.
_______________________________________________________________________
March
15, 2006 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Haase, Burress, Eichhorn, Krebs, Harris, Jennings, Ermeling, Erickson and Lawson
Staff Present: Stogsdill, Patterson, Pool, Day, Leininger, Pool and Zollner
_______________________________________________________________________
COMMUNICATIONS
Swearing in of witnesses.
PC Minutes 3/15/2006
ITEM NO. 9: 2007-2012 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
Receive suggestions and/or proposals from the public for projects to be included in the 2007-2012 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for the City of Lawrence.
STAFF PRESENTATION
David Guntert provided a brief overview of the purpose of the Capital Improvements Plan. He explained how projects were placed on the plan and later ranked. This ranking assisted in the creation of the City’s annual budget and kept projects “on the radar screen” that were important but could not be funded in the current fiscal year.
Mr. Guntert explained the kinds of projects that were typically placed on the CIP. He said the City departments and agencies had submitted their proposed projects and this hearing was an opportunity for the Commission and the public to do the same. Individuals were also welcome to submit proposals to the Planning Department in writing no later than May 28, 2006.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Hubbard Collinsworth asked that the CIP Committee consider including a project that had been discussed as part of the Mayor’s task force on homelessness – a 24/7 facility in the City with accessible public transportation and other services. He said he understood the funding was not currently available for this kind of facility, but he wanted to “keep the idea alive.”
COMMISION DISCUSSION
Eichhorn asked that the CIP ranking Committee consider giving high priority to the Peterson Road extension project.
It was verified that the Commission did not need to take any action at this time.
The Commission requested that Staff and the applicant present Items 10 and 11A-11D together. Items would be separated for public comment and action.
PC Minutes 3/15/06
ITEM NO. 10: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDEMENT TO HORIZON 2020; CHAPTER 6 (MJL)
CPA-2005-05: Hold public hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to Horizon 2020, Chapter 6 --- to address mixed use development in redevelopment areas. This item was initiated by the City Commission at their November 29, 2005, meeting.
PC minutes 3/15/2006
ITEM NO. 11A: ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT; BETWEEN 8TH & 9TH STREETS AND NEW JERSEY & DELAWARE STREETS (LBZ)
Z-12-80-05: Establishment of a Zoning Overlay District for the 8th and Penn Neighborhood Redevelopment Zone. The property is generally described as being located between 8th & 9th Streets and New Jersey and Delaware Streets. Submitted by BNIM Architects for Cinco Hombres, LLC & Pennsylvania Street Investors, LLC, property owners of record.
PC Minutes 3/15/2006
ITEM NO. 11B: M-2 TO C-5; 0.541 ACRE & M-3 TO C-5; 4.0 ACRES; BETWEEN 8TH & 9TH STREETS AND NEW JERSEY & DELAWARE STREETS (LAP)
Z-01-01-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 0.541 acre from M-2 (General Industrial) District to C-5 (Limited Commercial) District, and 4.0 acres from M-3 (Intensive Industrial) District to C-5 (Limited Commercial) District. The property is generally described as being located between 8th & 9th Streets and New Jersey and Delaware Streets. Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers for Cinco Hombres, LLC & Pennsylvania Street Investors, LLC, property owners of record.
PC Minutes 3/15/2006
ITEM NO. 11C: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 8TH & PENNSYLVANIA NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT; BETWEEN 8TH & 9TH STREETS AND NEW JERSEY & DELAWARE STREETS (LAP)
PP-01-04-06: Preliminary Plat for 8th & Pennsylvania Redevelopment. This proposed redevelopment contains approximately 4.541 acres. The property is generally described as being located between 8th & 9th Streets and New Jersey and Delaware Streets. Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers for Cinco Hombres, LLC & Pennsylvania Street Investors, LLC, property owners of record.
PC Minutes 3/15/2006
ITEM NO. 11D: FINAL PLAT FOR 8TH & PENNSYLVANIA NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT; BETWEEN 8TH & 9TH STREETS AND NEW JERSEY & DELAWARE STREETS (LAP)
PF-01-03-06: Final Plat for 8th & Pennsylvania Redevelopment. This proposed redevelopment contains approximately 4.541 acres. The property is generally described as being located between 8th & 9th Streets and New Jersey and Delaware Streets. Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers for Cinco Hombres, LLC & Pennsylvania Street Investors, LLC, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Zollner, Historic Resources Administrator, began the presentation by explaining the applicant’s intent to create a mixed-use development encompassing residential, office and limited retail uses. As part of this development, a portion of the subject area was also proposed as a new historic district within the City of Lawrence. She showed the approximate boundaries of the proposed new district, noting that a portion of this area was already listed on the Register of Historic Kansas Places and the nomination for the National Register was pending.
Ms. Zollner described the nomination process and the criteria the district must meet to obtain a national listing. She said that placement on the National Register would make the district eligible for tax credits to assist with rehabilitation efforts proposed in the overall development. These included a return to original brick streets in some areas and several building renovations, all within the identified boundaries of the proposed historic district.
Ms. Zollner said her department and the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association were excited about this opportunity preserve the buildings, neighborhood pattern and character of East Lawrence. She added that the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) was enthusiastic about establishing the UCO (Urban Conservation Overlay) District in the City. She explained what the UCO was and how it worked to achieve the goals of historic preservation.
Ms. Zollner showed photographs of the major structures in the proposed UCO, noting the characteristic grid street patterns, sidewalk placement and sizable industrial core of the neighborhood. She said some buildings would retain their industrial use with the proposed redevelopment, but some were no longer suitable for intensive industrial uses. The applicant was working with Staff to protect and conserve these buildings by rehabilitating them (possibly with tax credits) for modern uses that would entail minor interior changes and minimal exterior modifications.
Ms. Leininger introduced the portion of the development proposal covered by Item 10. This was a proposed amendment to Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan that would establish the Mixed-Use Redevelopment Center to address mixed-use developments like the one proposed in Items 11A-11D. The development proposed in these items was used as a base-line for creating guidelines to be adopted as part of the Mixed-Use Redevelopment Center amendment. These guidelines included:
Ms. Leininger responded to questioning that the 6 acre cap was based on the current 5 acre cap set by the Zoning Ordinance stating the minimum area required for an Urban Conservation Overlay District. This was increased to 6 acres to allow some flexibility when considering a variety of developments.
Burress suggested the 6 acre cap might be too restrictive and asked if the Commission might consider not stating a specific size limit for the overlay districts.
It was discussed that, while PCD zoning might be applied for some kinds of mixed use development, the UCO was specifically designed for this use and was considered by Staff to provide the highest chances for success.
Ms. Pool introduced the rezoning and plats that made up Items 11B-11D. Ms. Pool identified the zoning and uses of surrounding properties and showed the boundaries of the project area. She explained the proposed C-5 zoning was necessary to accommodate a mix of uses and would be less intense than the general and intensive industrial zonings currently in place. It was discussed that C-5 zoning would regulate only the uses, while the associated Design Guidelines would establish other elements such as parking, setbacks, density, etc. She noted the applicant proposed a density of 32 dwelling units per acre. This is more dense than the RM-2 District, but less dense than the RM-3 District.
Ms. Pool noted that the plat applications include the area to be rezoned to the C-5 District, in addition to an M-3 zoned property to the east of the proposed Delaware Street extension. The M-3 property will retain its industrial zoning with the project. Ms. Pool also described elements of the proposed preliminary and final plats:
Other points were clarified:
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Stan Meyers, Bartlett & West Engineers, introduced other members of the development team. Mr. Meyers said that, as part of the plat process, the development team had completed studies for drainage, sanitary sewer and traffic impact, all of which were reviewed and approved by Staff.
There was discussion about a letter submitted by Bill Penny, Penny’s Concrete, Inc., about changes to existing area streets that he believed may hamper his existing business in the area. Specifically, Mr. Penny asked if street-side parking would reduce turning radii for heavy truck traffic at Pennsylvania & 8th, Pennsylvania & 9th, and 9th & Delaware Streets. Staff said the streets would be designed per City standards and should leave adequate maneuverability for the trucks.
It was established that Mr. Penny’s concerns should be noted when public improvement plans were submitted for the proposed development. Each site plan would then also be designed with his concerns in mind.
Bo Harris, applicant, said the concrete trucks had a general pattern they followed and he did not think changes proposed by this development would impact that path.
Mr. Harris spoke also about the bus company in the area, saying there was a consistent problem of busses parked on Pennsylvania Street, especially early in the morning. He said the situation should improve with his project.
Mr. Harris said this proposal started in 2001, at the same time as the Hobbs-Taylor loft development. He said these were the only two “truly mixed use projects proposed or built in the city.” Mr. Harris said he hoped to utilize semi-public improvements, mainly parking, to create a live-work-play concept similar to the lofts. He added that the Hobbs-Taylor lofts were overbuilt for parking and he hoped to make better use of land in this second project.
Mr. Harris described the four zones making up the overall development proposal:
Zone One – Historic District
The Poehler building will house the only residential use in Zone One, and living units will be contained only on the 3rd & 4th floors. These will also be the only rental units in the entire development. These units will become owner-occupied in the long-term, but renting was the only way to guarantee meeting the tax credit stipulation that the properties be held under the same ownership for 5 years. The rest of the Poehler building and the other buildings in Zone One will contain a variety of office and retail uses.
Zone Two – Public Right-of-Way
The proposal currently included returning a section of Pennsylvania Street to its original brick surface. The HRC and Historic Preservation Staff encouraged this idea and would like to see sections of 8th & 9th Street returned to brick, but they and the applicant understood the maintenance concerns of other City departments.
This development proposed to create off-street parking on both sides of Pennsylvania Street and to eliminate a number of curb cuts. The new parking areas were being designed with porous surfaces to reduce existing stormwater runoff problems.
Zone Three – Limited Commercial
This zone seemed to be generating the most public interest. It involved developing new mixed-use and residential buildings along the west side of Pennsylvania Street.
Two corner buildings at 8th & 9th Street were proposed for 3500 square feet of retail each on the ground floor, with owner-occupied loft condominiums on the upper floors. Parking for these corner buildings would empty directly onto 8th & 9th Streets to prevent clogging the alley.
Zone Three also included three phases of row housing with associated covered parking. The applicant had met with the neighborhood several times, taking their input or lack of input into consideration in forming a material selection board for the units in this zone.
Zone Four – Limited Commercial
This zone encompassed existing commercial areas to the east and north.
Hunter Harris, Prairie Living & Development, spoke about issues raised by the HRC and East Lawrence Neighborhood Association (ELNA), and how the development came to its current design. Specifically, Mr. Harris explained the intent to provide an amount of “permanently affordable housing”, with the understanding that this term is necessarily subjective. Units would be constructed in a variety of sizes and price points, with an average cost of a 1- to 2-bedroom unit of around $100,000. The applicant was in negotiations with Tenants to Homeowners to take ownership of 10% of these units to fill through their housing program. The affordable housing element necessitates greater density for the west side of the street, and the applicant felt the density and building height proposed was suitable for the area and the project.
Mr. Harris also spoke about the intent to share parking between residents (night) and office and commercial uses (day) – an idea his team had seen work successfully in Kansas City.
Ed Tato, Lawrence resident, said he had been involved closely with Tenants to Homeowners for a number of years. He provided additional information about how the program worked and responded to questioning that tenants were able to take advantage of a limited amount of property appreciation.
Mr. Harris provided details about each type of housing proposed, including the rental units in the Poehler building and the row houses. He then responded to several questions:
There was discussion about pedestrian-friendly and common open space elements built into the proposal. It was noted that a large park-like common open space was not planned but several smaller open spaces were included. Community events could be held off the sheltered area along extended Delaware Street, and an area with rail cars would be included north of the industrial building. Bo Harris said these areas would be maintained through a common area maintenance system.
There was discussion about the suggestion that the proposed Delaware Street extension echoed an unsuccessful traffic design tried in the past. Bo Harris said the referenced “Haskell Loop” was located further to the east and was intended to take advantage of 8th Street. It was stated that the traffic issues in the overall area were too large to reasonably expect one developer to fix. The extension of Delaware Street would help disperse traffic throughout the area.
Bo Harris expressed concern about Staff’s recommended changes to the proposed parking standards. He said the design currently shown was consistent with similar types of development in other communities and was fitting for the kinds of uses they wanted to encourage.
The applicant was also concerned about Staff’s recommendation for a larger greenspace setback than was current proposed. The plat showed a 3’ greenspace setback for parking areas along the street, but Staff recommended an increase to 8’. Ms. Stogsdill explained this recommendation was on behalf of the Parks & Recreation department, which required a minimum of 8’ to accommodate trees. Sally Schwenk, consultant to the applicant on historic preservation issues, noted that Kansas environs law asked the developer to consider impact on the historic character of the area. An increase in the greenspace setback as recommended by Staff would disrupt the established sidewalk and street-side greenspace pattern in Zone One.
Ermeling said she would like to see additional limitations in lighting design to minimize impacts, such as fully-shielded lighting and height restrictions. Bo Harris said he would be amenable to considering these stipulations, but reminded the Commission that lighting in Zone One must also retain its historic character. It was verified that the Planning Commission would not review the site plan for this development, so conditions about lighting would need to be applied to the Design Guidelines.
Burress said the Design Guideline language for the overlay district did not seem very strong; using “recommended” and “not recommended” instead of “shall (not)” or “will (not).” It was discussed that the language left some flexibility to apply to a variety of buildings and situations. Ms. Zollner said this language was modeled after the language of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
As the Commission entered the public hearing for Items 10 and 11A – 11B, the public was asked to refrain from excessive repetition, and the Chair suggested that audience members might show their support and agreement for a speaker by raising their hand following his/her testimony.
PUBLIC COMMENT – Item 10 only
Janet Good spoke on behalf of the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, saying the neighborhood was pleased the City was ready to put mixed-use zoning in place, since that had been the neighborhood character for a long time. The ELNA hoped this project would lead the way for other developments fulfilling the goals the City said it wanted to pursue but had previously taken no steps to achieve: walkable neighborhoods, mixed uses, creative greenspace, and other elements of the New Urbanism concept.
Burress asked if the ELNA shared his concern about impacts of new development/redevelopment on the existing neighborhood. He felt the proposed design guidelines were not specific enough about traffic impacts. There was discussion about whether stronger/additional text was needed. Staff noted that the policies of Chapter 6 of Horizon 2020 would still be applicable to the overlay district.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Krebs addressed the 6-acre size limit for mixed-use redevelopment centers, saying this may have been included in response to comments at the Study Session. She clarified that her size concerns were relative to commercial uses only. More than one Commissioner was concerned that a 6-acre max for the entire district might be too restrictive, but not so much concern was expressed about limiting retail uses to 25% of the net area. It was suggested that they remove the acreage limitation, while adding a specific square footage limitation for retail uses, regardless of the size of the overall district. Haase said that applying arbitrary numbers without a retail impact analysis for each proposed development was “not the direction we’ve been going.”
Jennings suggested applying a square footage cap for each individual building; this would limit the area to the kind of “mom & pop” retail uses they would like to see in this kind of development. Krebs asked if this cap would be set lower than the 16,000 ground floor square feet currently proposed in the guidelines.
Staff clarified that this proposal was an entirely new kind of commercial center from the ones currently listed in the Comprehensive Plan – somewhere between the existing neighborhood commercial center and inner-neighborhood commercial center. Criteria for reviewing this new (to Lawrence) commercial concept and developing an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for mixed-use redevelopment centers were based on criteria for existing commercial centers in Chapter 6. The guidelines also replicated language from Goal 4 in Chapter 6 about transportation considerations.
Lawson said trying to microtune the document at this point was unproductive. He said everyone should understand that this was exploratory and changes would likely be needed in the future. Other Commissioners agreed that “field testing” would provide valuable information needed for making the best modifications.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Harris to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Chapter 6 of Horizon 2020 as presented by Staff and forward it to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT – Items 11A & 11B
Owen Lehmann, 1008 New York Street, expressed concern that his own properties would be negatively impacted by the proposed development. He supported the historic preservation element but the C-5 zoning posed significant problems and failures.
Mr. Lehmann said Pennsylvania Street is used as a truck route today and the residents did not want those trucks diverted onto neighborhood streets.
Mr. Lehmann clarified that he had serious concerns about an overlay district that included land the applicant did not own. He asked the Commission to reject the overlay district and to make the applicant submit a revised plan for only the properties he (the applicant) owned.
Erin Adamson, 1036 New York Street, said the applicant had worked closely with the neighborhood on the development concept for the east side of Pennsylvania Street and they appreciated this effort. However, the same joint consideration had not been given to the west side of the street.
Ms. Adamson said she supported mixed use development, but felt the proposed west side density was too high for this part of the neighborhood. She asked the Commission to defer the west side rezoning until the applicant and neighborhood could discuss this element.
Janet Good, ELNA, echoed the previous comments that Zone One was an excellent concept that was a long time coming. But she also agreed that the row housing element, while mentioned by the applicant early in the development process, had been vague until only recently. She said the neighborhood had not had sufficient time to discuss Zone Three, and listed specific concerns with parking, density, and the cost of the infrastructure.
Ms. Good also noted that the guidelines appeared to allow telecommunications towers in Zone One. She suggested this was an odd, modern ingredient for a historic district. It was discussed that cell towers must be allowed in all zoning districts per federal law, but this area was a topographic low point in Lawrence and frequent cell tower requests here were not likely.
Ms. Good said the proposed Design Guidelines did address many of the neighborhood’s concerns about setbacks, etc. However, the ELNA wanted to register their significant concerns about some of the allowable uses in C-5 zoning, such as bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, loan shops, pawn shops, drive ups and drive-throughs.
Ms. Good stated that the proposal didn’t include enough greenspace or open space. She also commented on the proposed shared parking, saying many area residents were elderly, worked odd hours, or were otherwise not vacating their parking spots in the typical 7:45-5:15 pattern.
KT Walsh, 732 Rhode Island, referenced the cell tower issue, asking if the towers were required to be removable and who paid for their removal. It was verified that cell towers were allowed through a CUP or UPR, and the Commission placed a standard condition on these that the applicant must remove the tower within 3 years of its becoming inactive.
Ms. Walsh expressed concern about the proposed design guidelines, saying this document would regulate minutiae that would have significant impacts on existing residents. She said this had not been a serious concern until hearing tonight that the guideline language was stronger than it had seemed (Re: recommended/not recommended).
Krebs outlined for the public the revised parking standards recommended by Staff for this development:
Haase added that a recent publication from the Urban Land Institute provided testing data showing that shared parking does work in mixed-use developments.
Phil Collison, 933 Pennsylvania, asked that the overlay district not be approved until the neighborhood could have more discussion with the applicant. He said it sounded like a large portion of the development was not yet finalized, such as greenspace and the potential affordable housing component. He added that comparisons to successful projects in Kansas City were moot, since this was a different, less urban setting.
Beth Rowlands, 1414 New York Street, said she thought the proposed density was “too much of a jump”, and she would like to see this revised to somewhere between single-family and what was currently proposed.
David Evans, 923 Delaware, provided history about the Haskell Loop. He said this failed attempt involved the condemnation and demolition of several single-family homes along the west side of Pennsylvania Street.
Pete Laufer, 407 E. 10th Street, said he appreciated the applicant’s attempt to take on a project that no other local developer would try. He said he understood the applicant was dependent upon funding that went beyond his own pockets and he had an obligation to design a financially feasible development. This said, Mr. Laufer asked what benefit this project would bring for those residents who made a commitment to the neighborhood back when it was not such a desirable place to live. They had stayed and made the area a quiet, safe place to live – would it stay that way?
Dayna Carlton, 937 Connecticut, said this seemed like a reasonable type of development for the area, but the appropriate mixed use zoning was not yet available. She said C-5 zoning seemed extreme and repeated concerns about the kinds of uses allowed in C-5 zoning.
Ms. Carlton expanded on the history of the Haskell Loop, saying the reason the west side of Pennsylvania Street was no longer residential was because established residents were “kicked out” of their homes to make room for the now-failed Haskell Loop. She said it was painful for her to see that working class people were removed in the past and now “rich people are moving in.”
Ed Tato, 1016 Pennsylvania, explained he was working as a consultant to the applicant on the “affordable housing” component of the project. He said this was an important piece of the puzzle and he was willing to “give a little” on the density to make sure some housing for lower income residents could be included. He said the design of the units and the urban context alleviated a lot of density concerns. He added that of course this development would increase traffic, but that the area’s streets were designed to handle this type of density.
Judy Romero, 929 Pennsylvania Street, spoke about the negative impacts of undesirable uses near her property, which led to expanded concerns about similar intrusive uses in the overall neighborhood.
Nickie Proudfoot, 820 New Jersey, said that this type of urban design was typically applied to a much larger area and was unsuitable for a development of this size. She noted that this development included at least two pieces that did not fit the typical standards of urban design – it was surrounding by parking and did not provide a central gathering area.
Godfred Beard, 842 New York Street, expressed concern that existing property owners would have to share in the cost of a benefit district made necessary by this development.
Allona Winner, 825 New Jersey, said she was afraid neighborhood gentrification would raise her own property taxes out of her range of affordability. She also shared the concerns of previous speakers about truck traffic diverting into the neighborhood, saying these streets were not constructed to handle heavy truck traffic.
9:35 p.m. - The Commission took a 10 minute recess and agreed unanimously to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Bo Harris asked to state for the record that the boards used for tonight’s presentation were the same ones used in previous neighborhood meetings, public meetings and community picnics. These had all been discussed with the public at great length and many changes had been made in response to input received at those venues. He respectfully suggested that anyone with serious concerns about the development would have been and had been involved in the process a long time before this point. He expressed frustration at this level of “late interest at a time when delays are more expensive.” He had not seen over 50% of the people at tonight’s meeting at any of the previous neighborhood meetings.
Bo Harris addressed the two main issues raised in the public hearing: density and traffic. He said an expanded traffic impact study had been completed, encompassing boundaries recommended by City Staff. The City had expressed no opposition to the study’s finding that the area streets were capable of handling the traffic generated by this project.
The applicant had every intention of including an affordable housing element in the development, even though the details of that agreement had not yet been finalized. The acquisition costs on the west side of Pennsylvania Street drove density within that portion of the development.
Finally, Bo Harris discussed existing conditions that would be replaced by the project, resulting in a much better neighborhood for everyone:
Bo Harris agreed that some details were not yet determined (ex. garage design), but these would be settled at the proper time and in accordance with City standards.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no additional comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was established that Staff had pursued multiple options for restricting certain uses out of the proposed C-5 zoning, but had been unsuccessful in finding any way to do this that could be supported by the City’s legal department.
In response to a comment from the public asking that the overlay district be subject to the “55% Rule” for restaurant uses, Staff explained that this regulation was specifically applicable to the Downtown area’s C-3 zoning.
Hunter Harris responded to questioning that the applicant was in complete agreement with the neighborhood about the undesirability of “noxious uses.” He said the inclusion of these uses would be completely against the kind of development the applicant was spending millions of dollars to achieve. Burress said that, unfortunately, the Commission must consider rezoning not based on what the applicant intended, but rather on what uses were appropriate for the area. Ms. Stogsdill pointed out that the C-5 zoning would not be “unfettered”, but would be somewhat limited by the overlay district design guidelines.
There was discussion about the possibility of conditioning zoning. Ermeling said that she had pursued this issue with Planning and Legal Staff, and she was convinced that this was not a possibility. Haase expressed frustration at having no mechanism “to get where we all want to go.” He encouraged Staff to continue investigating the creation of this much-needed tool.
Krebs asked if there was a way to make the affordable housing element a requirement of the proposal. Ms. Zollner agreed to continue researching the precedent of this kind of condition as part of the design guidelines. It was suggested that the Commission could communicate this desire to the City Commission, recommending a note on the site plan. It was additionally suggested that the applicant could create covenants requiring an affordable housing component, but noted that the City could not be involved in the adoption or enforcement of covenants.
It was verified that Staff agreed with the applicant that the proposed density was appropriate for the area, provided adequate parking was provided as outlined in the Staff memo.
Several points were mentioned:
Haase expanded on the information published by the Urban Land Institute on shared parking. Staff was directed to gather information about shared parking from the ULI materials and Smart Code data to present when the City Commission heard this item, with the possible result of changing Staff’s recommendation to revise the applicant’s proposed parking standards. Ms. Stogsdill pointed out that Staff’s recommended increase in required parking was still significantly lower than required by the current City Code.
Haase pointed out that this was the first time he had seen a proposal mixing socio-economic levels within the same development. Most affordable housing projects involved a large section of isolated units. He appreciated the applicant’s attempt to follow a model that was favored nationwide and reflected the ideals of the neighborhood.
Burress asked if placing this density (54 units) across the street from existing, much lower density (12 units), created its own kind of isolation. Ermeling suggested that housing types might be utilized to minimize this disparity.
Krebs suggested that the Commission state for the record that they encourage the City Commission to condition the site plan to include an affordable housing element.
There was discussion about the provision of common open space. It was noted that the applicant was providing small patches of open space throughout the development, and suggested it was unreasonable to ask for a park-like setting in an area this small. Additionally, Hobbs Park is located between 10th and 11th Streets to the south of the project.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Erickson to approve the Zoning Overlay District as presented by Staff, with additional conditions as follows:
o A note should be added stating that all external lighting will be shielded to prevent off-site glare.
o Staff shall explore the shared parking concept before the City Commission hearing to see if the Smart Code formula is appropriate for use in this project; and
o Minimum 3-foot greenspace setback for parking lots from lot lines.
o Staff shall research a method by which to limit certain noxious uses from the allowable uses within the C-5 zoning district prior to the City Commission meeting.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
The Commission discussed the 3’ parking lot landscaping setback, with Staff reiterating the Parks Department statement that they would not plant trees in anything less than 8’ of public right-of-way. Within the development, the applicant is allowed to plant trees in an area smaller than 3’ wide, as long as the regulated amount of landscaping was maintained.
Haase explained he had a long history of voting in favor of neighborhood concerns. However, in this case he would support the project because he strongly believed the development would be a significant benefit to East Lawrence.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Item 11A – Overlay District
Motion on the floor was to approve the Zoning Overlay District and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following revised conditions:
Lot Area and Yard Regulations
1. The “Lot Area and Yard Regulations” table on page 12 should be revised to show a comparison of the table on page 6-2 of the proposed Land Development Code with the requirements of the Design Guidelines.
2. 16-foot lot width minimum should be clarified. (page 12)
3. A minimum lot area per lot of 1,872 square feet may need to be added if the justification for a 16-foot lot width minimum is to allow for individual sale of rowhouses. (page 12)
4. A minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 1,360 square feet per unit should be added. (page 12)
5. No setbacks, but language should be included which states that, during the site plan review process, City planning staff may deem setbacks necessary to mitigate impacts. (page 12)
6. No lot depth, as Lot 1, Block B exceeds the proposed 120-foot lot depth maximum by 16 feet. (page 12)
Landscaping
7. The number of required street trees should comply with the minimum number required per City standards. (page 57)
8. The preferred street tree list should be included in the document as an appendix.
9. Modify the tree well section to meet current city standards. (page 58)
Parking Requirements
10. Staff was directed by the Planning Commission to develop a memo refining the project’s parking utilizing the shared parking calculations in the Smart Code prior to consideration of the Design Guidelines by the City Commission on April 4, 2006.
11. Estimates of square footage of non-residential uses should be included for the purposes of estimating the number of parking spaces need for commercial/office uses.
Lighting
12. A note should be included stating: “In order to limit lighting impacts on adjacent residential property owners, low bollard lighting will be utilized in parking areas adjacent to residential properties. Standard pole parking lot lighting will not be utilized in these areas.” (pages 13, 18, 64, 68, and 73)
13. A note should be added stating that all external lighting will be fully shielded to prevent off-site glare. Light fixtures should be non-reflective, with non-swivel heads mounted at a 45 degree angle so as to contain the light within the project boundaries.
Screening
14. Screening for ground and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be in accordance with City standards (landscaping or architectural treatment compatible with building architecture). (page 46)
15. Additional landscape screening may be required by City staff if deemed necessary to lessen impact of parking, lighting, or noise on neighboring residential properties.
Sidewalk Width
16. Minimum 5-foot sidewalk width for all public sidewalks. (page 56)
Development Review Process
17. A section should be included which outlines the development review process for redevelopment/development of lots within the Urban Conservation Overlay District. Site plan applications and, when applicable, replat and/or rezone applications, which are in accordance with City standards applicable at the time, are required for redevelopment or development within the UCO District. Site plans will undergo Historic Resources Commission review in addition to the standard site plan review.
Draft Land Development Code
18. Regarding the cited Section numbers for the City’s existing Zoning Regulations, a note should be included next to each Section number stating: “or subsequent applicable City standards”, as the stated Section numbers will not be applicable with Zoning Regulations other than those in use today.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Item 11B - Rezoning
There was additional discussion about the lack of ability to restrict uses. The neighborhood and applicant agreed about what uses were not suitable in this area but the Commission had no way to regulate this.
Burress asked how essential Lot 1, Block C was to the overall project. Hunter Harris explained this was identified as the first residential phase, since it was under the applicant’s ownership and could be used to finance the historic rehabilitation on the east side of the street. He added that mixed uses on the corners of 8th & 9th Streets would serve as anchors for the block.
It was established that the Commission could condition the final plat that the applicant must file covenants with the Register of Deeds, but enforcement of these covenants was not within the City’s purview. Staff was directed to look for ways to restrict uses in cases such as this, because it was assumed that similar complications would arise as mixed-use development became more popular with the development community. Hunter Harris said the applicant was willing to place use restrictions on the development that homeowners and commercial property owners would retain under a Landowner’s Association.
It was suggested that the Commission might revisit the overlay district if a mechanism was found to regulate use restrictions. Staff expressed concern at the legal implications of changing a given approval.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Item 11B - Rezoning
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the rezoning of 0.541 acres from M-2 to C-5 and 4.0 acres from M-3 to C-5 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Filing of the final plat at the Register of Deed’s Office.
Motion carried 8-1, with Haase, Lawson, Eichhorn, Jennings, Erickson, Ermeling, Krebs, and Harris voting in favor. Burress voted in opposition.
11C – Preliminary Plat
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Ermeling to approve the Preliminary Plat for 8th & Pennsylvania neighborhood redevelopment, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
a. Notation of the construction of new sidewalks along the eastern and western sides of Pennsylvania and Delaware Streets and along the southern side of 8th Street. These sidewalks should be a minimum of five feet in width.
b. Provision of pedestrian easements along one side of Pennsylvania and Delaware Street and along the southern side of 8th Street.
c. Notation of a future transit stop on the west side of Delaware Street, as noted in the Design Guidelines.
d. Notation of project gross acreage and acreage within each zoning district within the Site Summary.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Item 11D – Final Plat
Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Lawson to approve the Final Plat for 8th & Pennsylvania neighborhood redevelopment as proposed and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
Ermeling encouraged members of the public to submit any suggestions about possible amendments to the UCO design guidelines prior to City Commission consideration.
PC Meeting 3/15/2006
ITEM NO. 12: ADOPTION OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR LAWRENCE AND THE UNICORPORATED AREA OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, JANUARY 26, 2006 EDITION
TA-01-02-06: Pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. Chapter 12, Article 7, consider making a recommendation on the adoption of “Subdivision Regulations for Lawrence and the Unincorporated Area of Douglas County, January 26, 2006 Edition.” This set of regulations replaces Chapter 21 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, with Article 8 in the (proposed) new Development Code of the City of Lawrence, which replaces Chapter 20 of the Code of the City of Lawrence and replaces in its entirety Article 11 in the County Code, thereby establishing new standards for rural residential development and updated subdivision design standards and development criteria for the platting of lands within the incorporated limits of Lawrence and within the Unincorporated Area of Douglas County. The “Subdivision Regulations, January 26, 2006 Edition” is a general and complete revision of the city of Lawrence and Douglas County’s existing, jointly adopted Subdivision Regulations [re: Ordinance No. 5257 and Resolution No. 81-11, and amendments there to] and as such, affects all divisions of land within the corporate limits of the City of Lawrence and the unincorporated area of Douglas County. The “Subdivision Regulations, January 26, 2006 Edition” is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth in this notice. Copies of the “Subdivision Regulations, January 26, 2006 Edition” are available for review at the Office of the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Department, City Hall, 6 E. 6th Street, Lawrence, Kansas. The “Subdivision Regulations, January 26, 2006 Edition” is also available at www.lawrenceplanning.org. TA-01-02-06 and TA-01-03-06, TA-12-05-03 AND CPA-2006-01 are companion documents that together create new Rural Development Regulations within the existing zoning and subdivision regulations of Douglas County. (TA-12-5-03 was sent to the County Commission from the Planning Commission in March 2004 with a recommendation for approval. The County Commission has referred this text amendment back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation that the Planning Commission hold a new public hearing on the County Floodplain Management Regulations specifically to receive testimony on revisions the County Commission has recommended to floodplain development standards within the Lawrence UGA. The County Commission recommended these revisions as part of their work on new rural development regulations in the County.) Initiated for public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners on January 25, 2006.
BCC PRESENTATION
County Commissioner Charles Jones gave a presentation outlining the primary changes recommended by the Board of County Commissioners to the version of Chapter 13 sent forward with a recommendation for approval from the Planning Commission.
Jones began by saying both bodies had agreed for a long time that the 5 acre exemption was not working as a means to control rural growth and that a new method was needed. Finding an appropriate, supportable mechanism to replace the 5 acre exemption had been a point of much debate but Jones felt the revised Chapter 13 would fill this need.
The County Commission began their review of Chapter 13 based on two development scenarios. The first involved large acreage parcels, with a minimum size of 40 acres. The County Commission proposed allowing 60% of the parcel to be developed, with 40% set aside. This scenario would allow a residence to be built on a minimum of 3 acres. Once the parcel was annexed, the City had the ability to decide how to use the reserved 40%. The County Commission expressed a wish to encourage this kind of large-tract development.
The second development scenario was more concerning to the County Commission, involving smaller sections of land (less than 40 acres). To avoid encouraging small-parcel subdivisions, the County Commission proposed requiring similar restrictions, but the 40% reserve would be put aside permanently.
The County Commission also hoped to encourage tighter cluster housing based on the 3-acre concept but with the cooperation of the health department to allow placement of a residence on one acre, provided the lot had access to two additional acres that could be used as open space or greenspace and provide relocation possibilities for the septic system if needed.
Jones said many conditions approved by the County Commission echoed the sentiments of the Planning Commission, including the build-through requirements, access to paved roads and rural water.
Jones called specific attention to the County Commission’s intent that no absolutely rural development permits would be issued for property within Service Area 1. Land in this Service Area was anticipated for annexation in the near future (within 5 years) and development proposals would have to include annexation and rezoning to a City zoning designation.
For development outside the UGA, Jones said the current regulations were not adequate, resulting basically in allowing any rural development to go forward that could manage to garner 2 votes from the County Commission. While the County Commission was not prepared to approve the Chapter 13 version sent forward by the Planning Commission, they were proposing what they felt were strong restrictions that “sent the right economic signals”. Jones said the County Commissioners had put aside their widely varied philosophical differences and dedicated themselves to compromise to reach a 3-0 vote on a document that would be (they believed) a supportable and sustainable plan for rural growth.
Notably, the County Commission wished to move away from the contiguity criteria for subdivision review, since it was difficult to reach a consensus on how to interpret this term and it thus failed in its intended purpose of regulating rural growth.
The County Commission proposed that subdivisions outside the UGA:
The County Commission proposed significant changes to what was now the 5-acre exemption. They could not find support for a 20-acre exemption, but proposed instead to allow two building permits on 20 acres. This differed from a 10-acre exemption because a single 10-acre proposal was not permitted. The overall parcel must be 20 acres, but it could be split according to any percentage (with a 3 acre minimum).
Jones verified that the County Commission did not propose a build-through requirement outside the UGA. They also felt requiring a Cost of Services Study for developments outside the UGA would be politically unsupportable.
Another proposed change involved road frontage. Jones said this might be considered the most aggressive change and it would do a lot to impact rural development. The County Commission proposed:
Jones spoke about the Planning Commission’s proposed Agricultural Enterprise zone. While the County Commission understood the intent behind this proposal, they were skeptical that the concept would be accepted favorably by the rural landowners it was intended to help. From past experience, the County Commission found that many landowners reacted to any change in the regulations as an attempt of the government to restrict how the individual could use his/her property. If the County Commission was receiving any landowner support for the Agricultural Enterprise zone, they would be happy to consider it, but the community support was so far not coming forward.
For similar reasons, the County Commission did not support the creation (by a government agency) of a list of “environmentally-sensitive” and/or “prime agricultural” areas. Jones said the County Commission felt it would be more appropriate to have land owners come forward requesting this designation for their own property; labeling the property for them was likely to be perceived as an unwelcome way to impose further regulations. The County Commission asked the Planning Commission to assist in creating a mechanism of incentives to encourage landowners to pursue these designations for their own property. This might be a system of transferable development rights or some other method that could possibly be used as well for designating new industrial lands.
The County Commission did recommend requiring rural land owners to register their agricultural buildings, having worked for two years to make it clear to rural residents that this would involve no fees or sanctions. The registration was intended to provide the County and opportunity to explain that changing the building to any other non-agricultural use would make the building non-compliant with it’s A (Agricultural) and would require further review.
Jones explained the County Commission also could not support the idea of an ongoing 3-year review period for the UGA. The recent UGA update had been excessively challenging and time-consuming and the County Commission did not see an every-three-years review as a viable idea.
Other changes proposed by the County Commission included:
Jones closed by saying the County Commission had been supportive of the 5-acre exemption moratorium and subsequent extensions to the end of producing the best rural development future for Douglas County. However, the moratorium was not intended to be in place for an unlimited time, and the County Commission was sensitive to the fact that the plans of rural residents/landowners were being held up. They respectfully suggested that the Planning Commission approve the documents presented this evening and allow rural development to move forward in what the County Commission felt was a faster, easier and more dependable process.
Lawson commented that he had opposed the 5-acre moratorium when it was proposed. He now retracted that opposition and expressed his hope that the County Commission would be willing to extend the moratorium again if the adoption of Chapter 13 was not accomplished on schedule. Jones said the County Commission would try to be mindful of needs on both sides of that consideration.
It was established that Steven Chinn from the consulting firm of Stinson, Morrison and Hecker had worked with the City/County on the specific concepts of an administrative review process, large parcel development, and the conservation cluster.
11:30 –The Commission agreed to extend the meeting 30 minutes
PUBLIC COMMENT
Bev Worster said she was a rural land owner with an agricultural use outside the UGA. She expressed her significant concern about eliminating rural zoning and using an administrative process to review proposed land use changes. She was afraid this would be a random and subjective method, relying on the “whims of three [County] Commissioners.”
Ms. Worster stated her support for retaining the contiguity criteria, saying this method made sense for school bussing and emergency services, and it threatened less encroachment on rural uses.
Ms. Worster was also concerned about the 80 acre limitation for rural subdivisions, saying this meant a “huge” subdivision might add more people to an area than currently existing in some existing rural towns (Ex. Clinton).
Richard Morantz, resident of rural Baldwin City, stated his deep appreciation for the dedication shown by the Planning and County Commissions in working on Chapter 13. Unfortunately, he could not support the chapter version presented tonight, specifically the text related to subdivisions outside the UGA. He said the Planning Commission’s version of Chapter 13 would provide a better future for rural Douglas County.
Nancy Howard, Lecompton resident, asked how the proposed language changing what was now the 5-acre exemption would impact persons who had purchased 5 acres tracts but had not filed a survey before the moratorium took effect.
Ms. Howard explained she was a member of the Lecompton Planning Commission and stated their difficulty in getting the County Commission to designate a Lecompton UGA.
Sean Rothchild, Lecompton, said he was one of the landowners referenced by Ms. Howard, who now owned a 5 acre tract but was unable to pull a permit because of the moratorium.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was clarified that the Commission was not likely to take action on the revised Subdivision Regulations document tonight, but anticipated tabling the item and continuing to receive public comment in writing up until the March 29, 2006, 5:00 p.m. deadline.
Burress expressed concern that the 330’ road frontage on local roads was not adequate as what he saw as the only criteria for regulating rural subdivisions. Jones responded that and that the 330’ criterion applied only to local roads and was an improvement over the status quo. Burress replied that local roads made up a significant portion of the County road system.
It was suggested that this item be added to the April Mid-Month meeting agenda.
Jones responded to questions about Lecompton’s wish to establish their own UGA. He said the County Commission did not dispute Lecompton’s claim that the City needed more control over growth at their own periphery. However, the County Commission was hesitant to give UGA control to a “City-only” Planning Commission, since rural residents would be impacted that could not take part in Lecompton City elections. The County Commission was willing to discuss a joint City/County Planning Commission mechanism similar to the Lawrence’s arrangement.
Reference was made to Haase’s analysis of the draft chapter, looking for compliance with HORIZON 2020. Jones commented that the chapter had undergone significant changes since that analysis was done. He added that The County Commission was faced with the challenge of policy bumping into politics – how to create a document that could win enough votes (enough community support) to get passed. For example, Jones said he agreed with Ms. Worster’s comments about contiguity, but the County Commission simply could not reach an agreement about how to define this term and how to apply the regulation. The document was not perfect, but everyone had to be willing to compromise to reach a defensible, sustainable conclusion.
Eichhorn said the extensive road reclassification was a huge step. It was verified that the maps showing these new/extended classifications were included in the HORIZON 2020 amendments proposed in Items 13, 14 & 15.
Jones responded to questioning that the County Commission revisions did not incorporate the work of the Committee on Community Design. Eichhorn suggested this would be a good thing to consider, as well as the work of the Eco2 subcommittee.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Harris, seconded by Ermeling to table Item 12 until the April 2006 meeting.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
The Commission directed Staff to place a further discussion of Item 12 on the April Mid-Month agenda. It was also agreed that the April Mid-Month should be extended to two full hours, from 7:30 – 9:30 a.m.
Staff was further directed to use the media to make it clear to the public that comment on Items 12-15 would be accepted in writing up until 5:00 p.m. on March 29, 2006. However, (spoken) public comment would not be taken at the April Mid-Month meeting.
PC Meeting 3/15/2006
ITEM NO. 13: AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 6, 7, AND 18 IN THE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS
TA-01-03-06: Consider amendments to Articles 6, 7, and 18 in the “Zoning Regulations for the Unincorporated Territory of Douglas County, Kansas,” said amendments: revise the ‘A’ Agricultural District [Article 6] to allow development of single-family dwellings in conformance with revisions to platting and development requirements in the jointly adopted Lawrence/Douglas County Subdivision Regulations; revise the ‘A-1” Suburban Home Residential District [Article 7] to conform to minimum frontage and entrance spacing requirements for roads in Douglas County, when adopted by the Board of County Commissioners; and, revise the Height, Area and Bulk Requirements Table, [Article 18] to conform to minimum frontage and entrance spacing requirements for roads in Douglas County, when adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Initiated for public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners on January 25, 2006.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Harris, seconded by Ermeling to defer items 13, 14 & 15 to April 2006 agenda meeting. Staff was directed to place the items on the April 2006 Mid-Month agenda for discussion prior to the public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously.
PC Meeting 3/15/2006
ITEM NO. 14: REVISIONS TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE URBAN GROWTH AREA (UGA) OF LAWRENCE
TA-12-05-03: Consider revisions recommended to the floodplain management requirements for residential development within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) of Lawrence in the Floodplain Management Regulations [Article 28] text amendment that was forwarded to the County Commission by the Planning Commission in March 2004. Specifically, the County Commission is recommending modifications to the Intent provision of this Article, modification to the freeboard requirement for residential structures, increasing it to two (2) feet for residential development within the Urban Growth Area, and revising the effective date of this regulation. Initiated for public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners on January 25, 2006.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Harris, seconded by Ermeling to defer items 13, 14 & 15 to April 2006 agenda meeting. Staff was directed to place the items on the April 2006 Mid-Month agenda for discussion prior to the public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously.
PC meeting 3/15/2006
ITEM NO. 15: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 4 AND 5 TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS
CPA-2006-01: Hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Horizon 2020, Chapters 4 & 5. The amendments are: to ‘Chapter Four – Growth Management’ and ‘Chapter 5 – Residential’ which pertain to the development criteria for rural residential development in the Unincorporated Area of Douglas County. Associates with text changes in these two chapters are two maps, Map 4-1 and Map 4-2 which depict the criteria that will be used in the evaluation of rural development within the Lawrence UGA, Service Areas 2 through 4, and within the remainder of the Unincorporated Area of Douglas County. There are also changes to the road classifications to the Major Thoroughfare Maps in Chapter 8 [Maps 8-1 and 8-2]. Initiated for public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners on January 25, 2006.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Harris, seconded by Ermeling to defer items 13, 14 & 15 to April 2006 agenda meeting. Staff was directed to place the items on the April 2006 Mid-Month agenda for discussion prior to the public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN - 12:05 a.m., March 16, 2006
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.