PC meeting minutes 09/26/05
ITEM NO 12: TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 21, CITY CODE (LMF/DC)
TA-07-04-05: Consider Text Amendment to Chapter 21 of the City Code which would eliminate government takings for street or other public purposes as a cause of any setback or required off-street parking violation.
ITEM NO 13: TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20, CITY CODE (LMF/DC)
TA-07-03-05: Consider Text Amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code which would eliminate government takings for street or other public purposes as a cause of any setback or required off-street parking violation.
Items 12 & 13 were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Finger explained the two proposed amendments to the joint City/County Subdivision Regulations were related to the ongoing legal issue of governmental takings and variances, following Judge Malone’s ruling on lot conformance following the 6th Street road improvements.
Staff outlined the key points of the proposed amendments as stated in the Staff Report. Ms. Finger said both text amendments were focused on existing developed property that, through no action of the property owner, were made non-compliant or non-conforming. It was verified that these amendments were meant to apply only to existing developed land. Undeveloped properties were not impacted by these amendments. The Commission expressed concern that the text, as written, was not clear on this point.
Meeting extended 30 minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chief Counsel Sally Howard from KDOT spoke about the cooperation between KDOT and the City to share in the acquisition costs of the 6th Street property and to design the streets to require as little new right-of-way as possible. She said it was mutually believed that the setbacks of developed properties along 6th Street would not be impacted when additional right-of-way was taken for road improvements. However, Judge Malone’s ruling contradicted this belief and was the basis of the proposed text amendments.
Chief Counsel Howard explained the proposed language was intended to clarify that, when additional right-of-way was taken for a public improvement, the existing developed land would not be made non-compliant or non-conforming because of changes to setbacks. The developed property would be legally allowed to retain development as if the existing setback matched the platted setback.
It was verified that these amendment did not apply to land that was platted but not yet developed. Burress suggested a “plain language” statement to avoid confusion on this point.
Chief Counsel Howard suggested the City consider making these amendments retroactive. Ms. Finger said amendments were typically only prospective but the Commission had the ability to recommend otherwise if they chose.
Dan Watkins spoke on behalf of the Bauer Farms developer and several land owners along the 6th Street corridor that had granted additional right-of-way to KDOT with the understanding it would not effect their setbacks. Mr. Watkins said his clients supported the proposed amendments but he said discussion of this and associated issues should not end here.
Mr. Watkins described the variable width of right-of-way along the 6th Street corridor and asked the Commission to consider removing the “super setback” requirement of 50’ from the regulations.
Jane Eldredge stated her support of the proposed amendment and the suggestion that they be retroactive. She suggested January 1, 2002 as a retroactive effective date to precede any takings involving KDOT.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff responded to questioning that the City did not currently have the ability to create the maps Mr. Watkins had requested because we do not have GIS data on the new 6th Street right-of-way or alignment but she had spoken to the City Engineer and this task was underway.
There was discussion about W. 6th Street as a “monster corridor” and how this created pedestrian hazards.
It was suggested that the Commission give careful consideration before changing the wide corridor concept, since this idea was generated at a time when Commissions at all levels agreed on the desire to plan for and reserve right-of-way for a gateway design on W. 6th Street. There needs to be further discussion about how this intent has changed and how gateway planning relates to the concept of New Urbanism.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 12
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Lawson to approve the Text Amendment to Chapter 21 of the City Code as presented and forward it to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation, subject to the following condition:
Motion carried 8-1, with Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Eichhorn voted in opposition.
Meeting extended to 11:00 without opposition.
Item 13
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Harris to approve the Text Amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code as presented and forward it to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following condition:
Motion carried 8-1, with Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Eichhorn voted in opposition.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
Eichhorn explained he had voted in opposition because he was apprehensive about recommending approval with an open-ended retroactive effective date.