PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
Meeting minutes
May 2006
_____________________________________________________________
May 22, 2006 – 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Erickson,
Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan
Staff present: Stogsdill,
Day, Leininger, Miller, Patterson, Pool, Zollner and Kemerling
_____________________________________________________________
MINUTES
Ermeling requested minor changes to
Number 13 on page 37 in the March 2006 minutes.
Ermeling amended the text to read fully
shielded rather than shielded and non-reflective, non-swivel heads mounted at a
45 degree angle and be confined in that acreage.
Motioned by Ermeling, seconded
by Harris to approve the March 2006 minutes as revised.
Motion
carried 7-0-1. Burress abstained.
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
T2030: The
committee met twice. Come up with a
formula for structuring our work with the process, gathering information,
working with the public, interacting with various officials. The website has been launched and the committee
is restructuring interactions with the public and officials.
TAC: The committee reports that
the Lawrence-KU coordinated public transit study will occur. 8 bids were
received, 4 of the bids were thrown out.
Don Baylor and Associates were accepted as the best bid. Approximately a $105,000 study. $60,000 from KDOT and $45,000 from the
City. It will occur over 6-7 months and
should have a report at the end of that.
Notation of commuter rideshare program.
Has a website that is available to the public. The committee recommends the addition of one
representative each from City Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to
T2030 Committee.
CDC: The City Commission has agreed to fund
CDC for pursuit of consultants to help devise parallel code for traditional
neighborhoods.
PCMM: The committee met three times
regarding the county subdivision regulations which will be discussed in further
detail at Wednesday’s meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Stogsdill outlined the following
communications:
ITEM
4: Final Plat for Eagle Ridge
Subdivision No. 2
·
Letter from Danny Kaiser, neighboring property owner, in support of the
request to replat the lots.
ITEM 6:
Elsie Hemphill Addition, 19th &
·
Letter from James Grauerholz, Trustee/Executor, Burroughs Estate on
behalf of several property owners stating concerns regarding proposed driveways
and proximity to the Zinn-Burroughs House.
ITEM 10:
Use Permitted Upon Review for
· Memo from Staff to defer
to June PC meeting.
ITEM 11: Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Regarding
Chapter 9-Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
· Letter and attached
comments from the League of Women Voters of Lawrence-Douglas County suggesting
changes.
ITEM 13:
Revised Preliminary Development Plan for
· Email from Paul Werner of
Paul Werner Architects, applicant, requesting deferral.
· Letter from the League of
Women Voters of Lawrence-Douglas County expressing concern with the development
plan.
· Letter from Shannon and
Mark O’Lear, neighboring homeowners, expressing concerns regarding child
safety, developer responsibility and development precedent.
ITEM 15: Conditional Use Permit Request for
Midnight Farm
· Letter of opposition from
Larry Hoover, neighboring property owner.
ITEMS 17-19:
Amendments and Adoption of Subdivision Regulations for
· Letter from Susan
Millstein,
· Letter from David
Millstein,
· Letter from Pat Ireland,
former
Miscellaneous Item No. 1: EIS for the
· Letter from Gerald
Dunfield suggesting a deviation to the route currently proposed.
· Letter from Eastern
Lawrence Neighborhoods Coalition regarding an Eastern Bypass option.
Miscellaneous Item No. 2: Revised Conditions for
· Memo from Staff regarding
revised conditions for approval.
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUESTS
Krebs revised
motion to allow Item 6 will be on regular agenda and also be available for
public comment. Ermeling seconded.
Motion carried
unanimously 8-0.
Swearing
in of witnesses
PC Minutes 5/22/06
ITEM NO.
1:
FDP-04-04-06: Final Development Plan for
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Ermeling to approve the Final
Development Plan for Lake Pointe PCD, Phase 1 based on the findings of fact
presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following
conditions:
1.
Provision of a
revised Final Development Plan to include the following changes on the face of
the plan:
a.
location of
downspouts shown and location must not conflict with pedestrian walkways;
b.
pedestrian
walkway from
c.
materials and
style of fences shown or noted.
2.
Provision of a revised landscape plan per
staff approval to include:
a.
landscaping with
native trees, shrubs, forbs and/or grasses in detention basins and swale;
b.
landscaping near
the driveway along
c.
note added that
1/3 of the plantings are evergreen species.
3.
Provision and
approval of a photometric plan prior to
release of the Final Development
Plan for issuance of a building permit.
4.
Execution of a
site plan performance agreement.
5.
Provision of the
mylar and recording fees made payable to the
Douglas County Register of Deeds.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0 as
part of the Consent Agenda.
PC
Minutes 5/22/06
ITEM NO. 2:
PF-04-11-06: Final Plat for Lake View
Commons, a replat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 2 of Lake View Addition No. 2,
located at the northwest corner of
ACTION
TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by
Ermeling to approve the Final Plat for Lake View Commons, a replat of Lots 1
& 2, Block 2 of Lake View Addition No. 2, based on the findings of fact
presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following
conditions:
1.
Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a.
A current copy of a paid property tax receipt;
b.
Recording fees
made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
c.
Revised Master
Street Tree Plan graphic showing trees outside the utility easement along
2.
Provision of the following revisions to the final plat:
a.
Mark and label
the portion of
b.
Remove the
easements along the front property line, except those that are required for
sanitary sewer.
c.
Show that
previously dedicated easements which are no longer needed are vacated.
d.
Pinning of the
lots in accordance with Section 21-103 of the Subdivision Regulations.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0 as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC
Minutes 5/22/06
ITEM NO. 3: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LIVENGOOD
ESTATES SUBDIVISION; EAST OF E 1800 ROAD BETWEEN N 1000 & N 1100 ROADS (PGP)
PP-04-07-06: Preliminary
Plat request for Livengood Estates Subdivision, located east of E 1800 Road
between N 1000 and N 1100 Roads. This
proposed residential subdivision contains approximately 40.91 acres. Submitted by Dallas Livengood, applicant, for
Victoria & Clifford Pagles, property owners of record.
Item 3 was deferred by the applicant prior to
the meeting.
PC Minutes 5/22/06
ITEM NO. 4: FINAL PLAT
FOR EAGLE RIDGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2; 786 N
988 ROAD (PGP)
PF-04-08-06: Final Plat
request for Eagle Ridge Subdivision No. 2, a replat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 2,
Eagle Ridge Subdivision, located at 786 N 988 Road. This proposed one-lot residential subdivision
addition contains approximately 12.83 acres.
Submitted by ILC of Topeka and Lawrence, LLC, for Jan Adamson, property
owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by
Ermeling to approve the Final Plat request for Eagle Ridge Subdivision No. 2,
based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject
to the following condition:
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0 as
part of the Consent Agenda.
PC
Minutes 5/22/06
ITEM NO.
5: FINAL PLAT FOR MP ADDITION, A REPLAT;
PF-04-09-06:
Final Plat request for MP Addition, a replat of Lot
40 less the south 115 feet, Addition No. 11,
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by
Ermeling to approve the Final Plat request for MP Addition, a
replat of
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0 as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC Minutes 5/22/06
ITEM NO.
6: FINAL PLAT FOR ELSIE HEMPHILL ADDITION, A
REPLAT; 1900 LEARNARD (PGP)
PF-04-10-06:
Final Plat request for Elsie Hemphill Addition, a
replat of Tract D, Evergreen Addition, located at 1900 Learnard. This proposed three-lot residential
subdivision contains approximately 1.591 acres.
Submitted by
Staff
indicated the applicant’s representative was unable to attend the meeting and
requested a one month deferral.
Motion
by Krebs to defer Item 6 to the June Planning Commission meeting to allow for
public comment. Seconded by
Ermeling.
Motion to defer passed 8-0.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
PC
Minutes 5/22/06
ITEM NO. 7:
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
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Zollner introduced the item and explained the
correct area was not noticed properly for the March PC meeting per article 18. HRC
initiated rezoning of the overlay district and it was different in process from
a typical rezoning. When the oversight
was noted, the item was placed on the agenda for May, signs were posted and
property owner letters were sent. Design
guidelines, history, and the original staff report were presented. City Commission will be given all
documentation including minutes from the March and May meetings. Including, as a recommendation, the changes
suggested by the Planning Commission at the March meeting.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Bo Harris, applicant, representing 8th &
Pennsylvania Neighborhood redevelopment stated he has been through the process
previously with the commission and gave a short overview of project.
Burress expressed a concern with density development
and asked if density is determined by the underlying zoning rather than the design
guidelines.
Mr. Harris replied that overlay district controls
the density of the project.
Burress commented that density would be a
legitimate subject for public hearing right now.
Mr. Harris gave a presentation of slides addressing
density and regarding streetscapes, project timeline, schematics, neighborhood
concerns. Density would be in Zone 3 of
the project. Primary concerns of
neighborhood are traffic, C-5 use limitations of property, parking, density,
funding of infrastructure and gentrification of all of
Mr.
Harris presented multiple slides addressing traffic study and notes from the
traffic study summary.
Things
done to address C-5 use limitations:
There will be no rental units only sold units with
a HOA document and common area maintenance fees in certain buildings. There will be covenants and restrictions which
control quality and activities in the units.
Mr. Harris is agreeable to either deed or site plan restrictions that
will fill the need.
Mr. Harris presented the parking calculations and
plan change and discussed the Smart code requirements. Parking required is 177 (developer’s
standards). Mr. Harris said it was important
to note that the public went away with the impression that they were going to
have 177 parking spots. He feels that is
the trade off between sustainable development, green space and the alternatives
for mixed uses and to share parking in different locations and go through
pedestrian patterns.
Proposal
provides for:
Mr. Harris gave his interpretation of density; when
he thinks density, he thinks first of vitality of the area, sense of place, the
smart code aspects of the density, the relationship to downtown Lawrence, the
walking distance that is provided, the alternate transportation, all above
economic issues. As economic issue
alone, Mr. Harris is asking for 54 units.
The corner building will contain 3500 sq ft retail, offices, services or
professional and balance is covered parking.
Replicated on both corners in between there are 10 units of contemporary
brownstone type structure with walk up entrances, patios and wells then up a half
a flight to a townhouse that is a two story dwelling. Project is 2 ˝ stories tall. Mr. Harris explained there is good visibility
from the parking to the residential and a good travel pattern for it. UCD document references the tallest building
being the keynote building, others are mentioned in reference to the
Mr. Harris said the project will provide between
10-20% affordable housing. He is working
with Lawrence Land Trust. They would be the owner of the affordable units in
the project, would administer the program and would be permanently affordable
with mixed income levels.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Harris inquired about the
configuration of the back side of the second level on the corner retail
buildings facing the alley. Harris asked if the space will be usable.
Mr. Harris explained that the buildings will have
windows facing the alley and that the space in question is residential and will
be usable.
PUBLIC HEARING
Ed Tato, 1016
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Lawson to accept
and approve Item 7, zoning overlay district between 8th and 9th
Streets per recommendation by staff.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Burress stated he voted against the residential
part of the zoning last time although he probably voted for the design
portion. He sees the issue as being
settled and feels it is a good project that is good for the city. Burress thinks we have to have projects as dense
as this or even denser but expresses concerns regarding people currently in the
neighborhood accepting the change in density.
Burress stated he was going to compromise and vote for the motion.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to recommend approval of
Item 7, zoning overlay district between 8th and 9th Streets
per recommendation by staff and forward
the application to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based
upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report.
1.
The Design Guidelines document shall be modified to contain the
appropriate minimums, maximums, landscaping and parking requirements.
2.
The Design Guidelines shall include information on the future
development process.
Motion carried
unanimously, 8-0.
PC
Minutes 5/22/06
ITEM NO. 8:
M-2 TO O-1; 4.6 ACRES; WEST OF
Z-03-07-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately
4.6 acres from M-2 (General Industrial) District to O-1 (Office) District. The property is generally described as being
located west of
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Leininger presented an overview and showed an
aerial of the subject property. The
rezoning was a recommendation of the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan and was initiated
by the City Commission. Leininger noted the key points of the O-1 District and
that it would create appropriate transitional zoning between industrial and
residential uses and that the proposed zoning would zone to the existing use. She
stated the proposed zoning is consistent with Horizon 2020 policy regarding
appropriate transitional methods and down zoning would reduce the possibility
of future redevelopment of industrial uses.
Staff recommends approval of rezoning.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mary Beth Harmon,
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Harris to recommend approval of
rezoning 4.6 acres M-2 to O-1 rezoning, based on the findings of fact in the
body of the staff report and forward a recommendation for approval to the City
Commission. Seconded by Ermeling.
Motion passed unanimously 8-0.
DISCUSSION ON
THE ACTION
Ermeling expressed appreciation to Ms. Harmon for her positive
comment.
PC
Minutes 5/22/06
ITEM NO.
9: RO-1
TO RM-3; 0.28 ACRE; 640
Z-04-09-06: A request to
rezone a tract of land approximately 0.28 acre from RO-1 (Residence-Office)
District to RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residence) District. The property is generally described as being
located at 640
STAFF
PRESENTATION
Ms. Leininger gave a brief history of property
which was rezoned previously from C-5 to RO-1 as part of HOP District Plan. It has come to the Planning Office’s
attention that what the RO-1 district would transfer to in the Development Code,
which is RMO, would make the property non-conforming due to current
density. The proposed rezoning would be
zoning to existing use. Horizon 2020
identifies the subject property as medium density residential. The proposed zoning would still create the
appropriate transition between the more intense commercial uses to the south
and the residential uses surrounding the property. Staff recommends approval of rezoning.
PUBLIC
HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
ACTION TAKEN
Moved by Harris to recommend approval of rezoning approximately .28
acres from the RO-1 District to the RM-3 District and forwarding a
recommendation for approval to the City Commission based on the findings in the
body of the staff report. Seconded by Ermeling.
Motion passed unanimously,
8-0
PC
Minutes 5/22/06
ITEM NO.
10: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR EXPANSION AT
UPR-04-04-06: Use Permitted upon Review request for the expansion
of
Item was deferred to the
June Planning Commission meeting at Staff request.
PC Minutes 5/22/06
ITEM NO. 11: AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING
CHAPTER 9 – PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE (PGP)
CPA-2005-02: Planning Commission discussion on the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment (CPA) to Horizon 2020, Chapter
9 – Parks, Recreation, and Open Space. This
item was returned from the governing body for reconsideration. This
item was deferred from the April Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF
PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson presented a history of the amendment
and gave a recap of previous hearings. On
January 25, 2006 the item was discussed and then deferred due to neighborhood
park service radius standard for Parks and Recreation whether it should be Ľ
mile or ˝ mile service radius.
Information has been provided by Fred DeVictor, Director of Parks and
Recreation and Mark Hecker, Superintendent of Parks Maintenance, dealing with
the cost difference of Ľ mile service radius and ˝ mile service radius in the
Urban Growth Area as the city develops.
It would cost approximately one million dollars more for operation and
maintenance to have a Ľ mile service
radius. Within the Parks 2000 master plan,
they talk about the neighborhood parks having the ˝ mile service radius
standards. It is the Staff recommendation to approve with ˝ mile service radius
and send to the City Commissioners and Board of County Commissioners for
approval of Chapter 9.
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress questioned whether the cost
differential of the Ľ mile radius versus the ˝ mile radius is due to less
intensive forms of maintenance being required for the larger parks. Burress
compared multiple smaller parks to fewer larger parks and noted they would be
similar in acreage. He contends that if
the City finds a way to use less intensive maintenance on the smaller parks it
would be comparable to maintaining the larger parks and maintain Ľ mile radius walkability.
Mr. Patterson explained that mini-parks are generally
less than 3 acres, neighborhood parks are 5-10 acres. The 8 acre standard was used for the study.
The larger neighborhood park would have some areas requiring less maintenance
and that is the main reason for the cost differential in the analysis submitted
by the Parks Superintendent.
Burress asked if the two models assume retrofitting
the entire city and if it covered the entire UGA. Burress noted that the 1 million dollar figure
for park maintenance is a projection for 30-40 years from now, not the current
cost of maintenance.
Patterson replied that the cost difference was
explained by the difference between the Ľ mile and ˝ mile radius, for the
maintenance and operation costs of the smaller parks.
Burress continued that if you use the Ľ mile
radius as the definition for walkability and ˝ mile is actually used, there
will not be much of a gathering point. Ľ
mile encourages walk ability. Burress noted that a greater majority of the
population is served by a great number of parks.
Patterson rebutted that a larger number of parks
could mean more people are accessing parks that are less standard than the
current neighborhood parks with fewer amenities. Citizens would be served with
a mini-park standard rather than a neighborhood park standard.
Burress concurred larger parks with more services
were needed in addition to the smaller parks but stressed that walkability is
still defined by a Ľ mile radius.
Commissioner Harris questioned how the 3 acre park
standard developed as an alternative in the cost analysis study.
Mr. Patterson replied that Parks staff’s analysis was
based on an average of 3 acres when considering a Ľ mile service standard. Park staff’s study used
Burress stated that small green spaces with
benches within the Ľ mile radius standard would not be costly to maintain.
Patterson agreed that it would not be costly to
maintain such areas and noted that this is not an “all or nothing” proposal.
Commissioner Haase asked if surveys of other
communities were performed.
Mr. Patterson indicated surveys were performed by
an ad hoc committee and that the ˝ mile radius is an ambitious standard for a
community the size of
There was a discussion regarding what verbiage to
use for small green spaces and benches within the Ľ mile radius standard.
Ms. Stogsdill added that street furniture and
amenities are added to parks as use increases.
She used
Commissioner Krebs stated the distinction is Ľ
mile radius is for neighborhood parks and the parks provide a destination and
place to stop. She wondered whether a Ľ
mile radius for mini-parks instead should be considered. Krebs recognized there are increased
maintenance costs per square foot as compared to larger parks.
Commissioner Lawson advised there are compelling
arguments for considering the ˝ mile radius interval and noted Krebs’ statement
was appropriate.
Commissioner Riordan noted that city staff
believes the ˝ mile radius standard should be used and that the commission
should proceed using the ˝ mile standard.
Commissioner Ermeling recognized the potential in
creating a comprehensive plan and noted no new mini-parks have been proposed.
PUBLIC
HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
ACTION TAKEN
Krebs moved to recommend approval of Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and added a recommendation of further study for the concept of
smaller resting stops that are in a smaller service radius. The motion was seconded by Ermeling.
Burress moved to amend the motion to set a
standard for mini-parks at a Ľ mile radius in residential areas.
DISCUSSION
ON THE MOTION
Krebs recognized that further study and discussion
of the Ľ mile radius is necessary. She
continued that she would like Staff to research the concept and present
suggestions that are more specific about various park sizes. Krebs did not feel that the current
description of mini-parks do not meet “limited, isolated, unique residential
situations.”
ACTION TAKEN
Motion to amend died for lack of second.
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
Ermeling called attention to page 9-5 that
included revised language and spoke to the need for mini-parks in denser areas.
Krebs reiterated that additional language that had
been discussed at previous hearings needs to be added for mini-parks to address
unique and dense residential situations and would like specific numbers in the
report.
Harris stated two issues with the Ľ mile radius
for parks: First, with more density more people will need and use park services;
the second is walkability, which applies regardless of density. She is in favor of continued study and
recommended voting on motion that is on the table.
Ermeling felt the wording for the unique, limited
and isolated urban areas could be simplified.
Haase concurred with Commissioner Burress’ vision
and the challenge of how to implement this plan. He identified the need to find a mechanism to
identify property owners that would benefit from the parks.
Krebs said there should be recommendations for
land dedication or fees in lieu of land from land developers. This would provide a certain portion of land
or money to acquire parkland for that neighborhood.
Patterson noted there is an implementation chapter
in H2020 which addresses funding mechanisms.
Burress stated if you believe in walkability there
must have Ľ mile standard. If the
majority are to walk, there must be a Ľ mile standard. He thought there was
nothing in the current language to allow the standard to occur.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion carried 7-1, with Erickson, Ermeling,
Haase,
PC
Minutes 5/22/06
ITEM NO.
12: Amendment
of Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) budget (WWA)
Amendment of Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)
budget Revisions to the
UPWP budget to adjust funding for several work elements. As required by federal
regulations, funding tables are being revised for work elements and expense
categories to reflect carryover amounts from 2005.
Item 12 was deferred on the agenda prior to
the meeting.
PC
Minutes 5/22/06
ITEM NO. 13: REVISED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR
PDP-01-02-06: Revised Preliminary Development
Plan for
Item 13 was requested to be deferred on the
agenda by the applicant prior to the meeting.
Krebs moved to defer Items 6,
10 and 13 and that Item 6 will appear on regular agenda, not consent agenda.
Ermeling seconded the motion. The motion
was approved unanimously.
PC
Minutes 5/22/06
ITEM NO.
14A: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR FIRST SERVE
TENNIS;
UPR-04-03-06: Use Permitted upon Review request for the expansion
of First Serve Tennis, located at
ITEM NO.
14B: FINAL PLAT FOR YANKEE TANK VIEW ADDITION 2ND
PLAT;
PF-04-07-06: Final Plat request
for Yankee Tank View Addition 2nd Plat, located at
Items 14A & 14B were
discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Miller gave an overview and presented slides
showing the existing development and proposed improvements. She stated the applicant is requesting the replat
to make one lot for the expansion of First Serve Tennis. She noted that there were two previous UPR’s
at this location for Sport to Sport and Dance City, although the portion of the
property proposed for outdoor tennis courts had only been shown as open space
on these UPR’s. A new UPR was necessary
to include the new outdoor recreational use.
Ms. Miller noted that the City had a previous provision that
right-of-way would be dedicated for the extension of Olympic Drive to the city
park to the north when the property was replatted. Ms. Miller said the applicant has agreed to
dedicate right of way and remove the unnecessary easements; there will be one
easement on north side of the property. Ms.
Miller said no lighting provisions were requested. Staff recommends approval of the final plat
and UPR.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
C.L. Maurer from Landplan Engineering,
representative of the applicant, indicated agreement with Staff and the changes
discussed.
PUBLIC HEARING on Use Permitted Upon
Review Only
No
member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Harris asked how the applicant would proceed if
wanting to add lighting at a later date.
Stogsdill stated the request would be reviewed by
Staff and brought to either the Planning or City Commission for review.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 14A
Ermeling motioned to recommend the approval of
UPR-04-03-06 a Use Permitted Upon Review for the expansion of an existing
sports facility and construction of outdoor tennis courts and forwarding of it
to the
1.
Execution of a
site plan performance agreement.
2.
Provision of a
revised plan showing:
a.
the standard road
right-of-way to be dedicated for the extension of Olympic Drive and updated
site area;
b.
location of
future street trees along extension of Olympic Drive;
c.
grading with
elevations and heights of retaining walls, or provide grading plan;
d.
correct parking
reference: 8 spaces per each court and 1 space for each 200 nsf, excluding
courts;
e.
retaining walls
located outside of any easement.
Seconded
by Krebs.
Motion carried unanimously 8-0.
Item 14B
Haase moved for approval
of the Final Plat of Yankee Tank View
Addition 2nd Plat and forwarding it to the City Commission with a
recommendation for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way subject to the
following conditions:
1.
Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit
district for future street or sidewalk improvements for
2.
Provision of a revised Master Street Tree Plan with the following
changes:
a.
List the required number of trees required for the future Olympic Drive
extension.
b.
Correct name of plat on MSTP to ‘Yankee Tank View Addition 2nd
Plat”
c.
Correct the botanical names of the species as follows: Norway Maple—Acer
platanoides ‘Summershade’; Sugar Maple—“Acer saccharum ‘Legacy’; and Pacific
Sunset Maple is Acer truncatem x platanoides.
3.
Provision of the following revisions to the final plat:
a.
Standard road
right-of-way on the plat for the extension of Olympic Drive to the City park to
the north.
b.
Show unnecessary
easements as vacated or remove from the plan. The utility easements on the rear
and west property line of the northern portion of the property previously
platted as Lot 2A, The Landing are no longer necessary and should be shown as
vacated or deleted from the plan.
c.
Utility easement
provided along the rear and side perimeter of the property.
d.
Minimum area and
elevation of existing buildings must be shown.
e.
Section, township
and range must be corrected on the plat to SW Ľ, Sec. 4-T13S-R19E
4.
Submission of
public improvement plans prior to the recording of the Final Plat with the
Register of Deeds Office.
5.
Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a.
Recording fees
made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
Provision
of a revised master street tree plan. The species list on the master street
tree plan must be completed and the legal description changed to: ‘Yankee Tank
View Addition 2nd Plat’.
Harris
seconded.
Motion
carried unanimously 8-0.
PC
Minutes 5/22/06
ITEM NO. 15: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
REQUEST FOR MIDNIGHT FARM; 2084 N 600 ROAD (LAP)
CUP-04-03-06: Conditional Use Permit request for Midnight Farm,
located at 2084 N 600 Road. This
proposed residential living facility contains approximately 40.52 acres. Submitted by
Item 15 was deferred to the June
Planning Commission meeting by the applicant prior to the meeting.
PC
Minutes 5/22/06
ITEM NO. 16A: A TO A-1; 88.19 ACRES; SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF N 1600 ROAD AND E 550
ROAD (LAP)
Z-04-08-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately
88.19 acres from A (Agriculture) District to A-1 (Suburban Residential)
District. The property is generally
described as being located at the southeast corner of N 1600 Road and E 550
Road. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc.,
for Freestate, LLC, property owner of record.
ITEM NO.
16B: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
PP-04-08-06: Preliminary Plat request for Clinton Point Addition,
located at the southeast corner of N 1600 Road and E 550 Road. This proposed 15-lot single-family residential
subdivision contains approximately 88.19 acres.
Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Freestate, LLC, property owner of
record.
Items 16A
& 16B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF
PRESENTATION
Ms. Pool gave an overview of the property and
noted it is located outside of the Urban Growth Area. She stated the applicant seeks to develop 15
residential lots and 1 recreational tract.
Ms. Pool pointed out it is not contiguous with a platted A-1 zoned
subdivision. She said the applicant proposed to pave
APPLICANT
PRESENTATION
Mike Keeney, representing the applicant, indicated
the land is outside the UGA but adjacent to the UGA and is already divided into
a piano key configuration. He continued
to state that there is a good view of
Commissioner Lawson asked how long has owner had
the property and if Staff had received letters from the neighbors and whether
the regulations required sign posting.
Mr. Keeney replied that the applicant had owned
the property for 6 months.
Ms. Stogsdill indicated that no letters had been
received and that there was no posting requirement as it was a county property.
PUBLIC
HEARING
No member of the public spoke on these items.
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
Lawson
stated staff recommendation for denial is well-based and the appropriate course
of action.
ACTION TAKEN
16A
Motioned
by Lawson to recommend recommends denial of rezoning 88.19 acres from the A
District to the A-1 District and forwarding it to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation for denial based on the findings of fact
found in the body of the Staff report. Harris
seconded.
Motion to deny passed unanimously, 8-0.
16B
Harris
motioned to recommend denial of the preliminary plat of Clinton Point Addition based
upon the findings of fact presented by Staff.
Seconded by Krebs.
Harris
amended the motion to deny preliminary plat.
Krebs seconded.
Motion to deny passed unanimously,
8-0.
_______________________________________________________________________
PC
Minutes 5/22/06
MISC.
ITEM NO. 1:
Planning Commission
comment on the EIS for the South Lawrence Trafficway
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Krebs to defer
Miscellaneous Item 1 to the beginning of the Wednesday, 5/24/06 meeting. Lawson seconded.
Motion was approved unanimously 8-0.
PC Minutes 5/22/06
MISC. ITEM NO. 2: OLD BUSINESS
Revised conditions for Oregon Trail PP-12-28-04
STAFF
PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the revised conditions
and clarified site summary of lots. He stated that Landplan Engineering was
asking for two modifications regarding street access to the subdivision. Staff recommends approval of these
conditions.
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
Burress expressed concern regarding the street
network to the northeast and how it would impact Stutlzland. He asked if
Mr. Patterson stated the area is low density
residential and that a number of roads will be built to the east for the
development.
Harris requested clarification behind the revision
of minimum lot size.
Patterson answered that it was technical clean
up.
ACTION TAKEN
Harris motioned, seconded by Krebs, to approve
revised conditions as recommended by Staff based on
the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to
the following conditions:
1.
Provision of an agreement not to protest formation
of a Benefit District for improvements to
2. Provision
of an agreement not to protest Formation of a Benefit District for improvements
to the signalization of the intersection of
3.
Provision of the following notes to the
Preliminary Plat:
a.
No building permits will be issued until the completion of either
b.
Building permits issued within this subdivision shall be limited to a
maximum number of dwelling units (based upon an updated revised Traffic Impact
Study showing only one access into the subdivision with Level Of Service of “C”
or better, at the intersection of George Williams Way and W. 6th
Street, or Stoneridge Drive and W. 6th Street) until such time as a
second access to the subdivision is completed.
4.
Provide a cross section of
5.
Revise the minimum lot area shown on the plat to 8,012 Square Feet.
6.
Modify Notes No. 10 & 11 and indication on Tract “A” that the City
will accept ownership and maintenance of Tract “A”. The developer will be
responsible for establishing the ownership and maintenance of Tract “A”.
7.
Discuss with staff to determine if a future benefit district for an arterial
street to the north of this subdivision can be formed on platted property and
if the need is determined that an agreement to not protest the formation of a
benefit district is needed for this potential future right-of-way, that an
executed agreement be provided at the time of final plat submittal.
Motion carried
unanimously, 8-0.
There was no other business to come before the Commission.
9:05 p.m. –
Recess until 6:30 p.m. on May 24, 2006
PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
Meeting minutes -DRAFT
May 2006
_____________________________________________________________
May 24, 2006 – reconvened at 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson,
Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs,
Staff present: Stogsdill,
Ahrens, Guntert, Kemerling
_____________________________________________________________
RECOGNITION OF PLANNING
COMMISSION CHAIR
Krebs
recognized Commissioner Riordan and expressed appreciation for the commission
for his years of service.
Commissioner
Riordan expressed his thanks to each commissioner, Staff and the public for
bringing their thoughts and comments to meetings. He stated appreciation to the Commission for
working towards the common goal of making the community better.
COMMUNICATIONS
ITEMS 17-19
·
Copy of a memo previously emailed to the commissioners “Big
Issues List”
REVISED AGENDA
·
Including Misc.
Item 1
EX PARTE/ABSTENTIONS/DEFERRAL
REQUESTS
Speakers were sworn in.
PC Minutes 5/24/06
MISC.
ITEM NO. 1:
Planning Commission
comment on the EIS for the South Lawrence Trafficway
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Ahrens gave a presentation
on the adopted LRT2025 plan that illustrated the
Erickson asked if T2030
committee is looking at alignments and Haase asked if the Baker Wetlands were
identified as a Heritage Area when T2025 was adopted.
Mr. Ahrens responded he did
not believe T2030 committee was looking at alignments and that he did not
believe the Baker Wetlands had been identified as a Heritage Area at the time
T2025 was developed.
Discussion was continued
regarding traffic congestion relief on
Riordan inquired whether
the Baker Wetlands is currently a Heritage Area or if the designation is
pending. Haase replied that the
designation is pending and that it triggers the federal 4F process.
Ahrens explained the 4F
process is triggered by several different actions. Any project that encroaches on several
different areas, public facilities, cemeteries, schools, environmentally
sensitive areas triggers 4F.
Eichhorn questioned
whether anything had changed in the Baker Wetlands that would trigger opening
the 4F process. Ahrens replied that all
proper process had been followed and due consideration given to options. KDOT’s proposal had been to go above and
beyond the minimum required for wetlands mitigation.
PUBLIC HEARING
Robert Eye, attorney for the
Wetlands Preservation Organization, appeared and urged the Commission to
consider the significant impact of paving the Baker Wetlands. Mr. Eye stated
the
Joyce Wolf, 1605 E 318 Rd, Board of
Directors of Jayhawk Audubon Society. The
society has been involved in the SLT issue for 20 years. Ms. Wolf contends there are better and more
reasonable alternatives to a 32nd Street alignment. The Society does not endorse this
alternative. Ms. Wolf spoke about family
related activities formerly hosted in the Wetlands such as the Baker Wetlands
Field Day and cited it as an example of the educational and recreational
opportunities provided by the Wetlands.
The Society has studied
wetlands mitigation and feels there is a question as to whether mitigated
wetlands are ever able to function as natural wetlands. Ms. Wolf encourages the Planning Commission
to incorporate wetlands studies into the decision making process of the
regional transportation planning effort.
Carrie Maynard- Moody, Wakarusa Group of the
Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club appeared.
She said the group has been active in this issue for the last 6 years
and has used the Baker Wetlands for educational and service opportunities for
many years. Ms. Maynard-Moody feels the
Wetlands should be preserved for flood protection and water purification. She presented a National Sierra Club map that
lists the SLT as a “red light” project that is environmentally sensitive. Ms. Maynard-Moody believes the EIS should
consider a hard look at regional public transit as an option and thinks the SLT
is a transit project, not a highway project.
Additional speakers were sworn in.
Charles Benjamin, attorney and lobbyist
for the Kansas Sierra Club stated the group’s support for the Haase
letter. Mr. Benjamin submitted a set of previous comments
of the then chapter chair regarding EIS that was similar in content to Haase’s
letter. He further stated the Sierra Club
has been authorized by the national organization to litigate the SLT. Mr. Benjamin explained how litigation
authorization occurs, that the Sierra Club does not file frivolous lawsuits and
that this demonstrates the problem with the SLT process. He
believes the SLT is not compliant with NEPA and had hoped that City
Commissioner Highberger’s initiative would lead to a community consensus. Mr. Benjamin offered the Sierra Club’s
assistance in considering any reasonable alternatives.
Eichhorn asked Mr.
Benjamin to explain how the EIA/EIS was flawed.
Mr. Benjamin replied that all reasonable alternatives, such as public
transit, were not fully explored.
Michael Caron, Executive Director of
Save the Wakarusa Wetlands explained that the organization does not endorse any
particular route but feel that paving the Baker Wetlands is an atrocity. Mr. Caron stated the entire EIS was based on
the fiction that there would not be urban development south of the river or
negative impacts on the environment in the Wetlands from that development. Mr. Caron indicated there is clearly
substantial development which, with 4 lanes of the SLT plus a 12 foot noise
wall then 4 lanes of relocated 31st Street, will impact the Wetlands
significantly particularly with large truck traffic. He was concerned that the there would be an
impact not only to wildlife but to the Haskell campus.
Mr. Caron referenced
historical information on farming the Baker Wetlands area and stated concerns
that the herbicides and pesticides used in farming would impact the
biodiversity in the mitigation area Wetlands.
Carol Bowen, area resident, formerly
worked on Transportation Task Force of H2020 & T2025 and is now a member of
Traffic Safety Commission. Ms. Bowen was
interested in Haase’s letter due to current issues with through streets in
Melinda Henderson,
Close public hearing.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress
stated there may be other alternatives besides the selected route but the
selected route may be the reasonable alternative. If you go through process and
have an alternative that is XYZ, they haven’t rejected current alternative.
Commissioner Eichhorn
asked Mr. Ahrens if a new impact assessment would be triggered by the
community’s expanding growth pattern to the south.
Mr. Ahrens replied that
the FHWA will be required to make that determination.
Commissioner Harris cited
particulars of the Haase letter regarding the eastern bypass and building a
boulevard system. She asked if a
boulevard system will be sufficient to handle cross town traffic.
Mr. Ahrens stated the
questions would require further analysis to answer. He said the Haase letter included proposals
of new roadways which have not had cost estimates or thorough study to identify
community impacts. Mr. Ahrens indicated
there is a consultant study for
ACTION TAKEN
Commissioner Lawson
motioned that the MPO not lend its endorsement to the draft of the letter by
Haase.
Commissioner Burress
called a point of order and suggested the motion should be to take no action.
Lawson restated the motion
and moved to take no action on the letter.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Krebs stated the
Commission has an obligation to comment on the letter in the public comment
period.
Eichhorn agreed with Krebs
and indicated he would not support the motion as stated. Eichhorn asked to revise Haase’s letter.
Haase considered whether
the organization should weigh in on this topic.
He said the MPO was distracted in the past and there have been changes
in the community. He stated serious
debate about an eastern bypass would eliminate the need for the SLT. Haase commented that the
ACTION TAKEN
Burress motioned to move
question.
Riordan disagreed and
stated the specific motion is that the Commission will take no action on this
letter.
Question called.
Motion passed 7-3 with
Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris and Krebs in the affirmative. Lawson,
Vote was taken on the
previous motion to take no action on the letter.
Motion failed 4-6 with Eichhorn,
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Riordan stated he has an
issue with the information and concepts presented in Haase’s letter. He indicated the process is different than
that used for subdivision regulations and believes not enough time has been
spent on this issue. Riordan said the
minimal amount of time spent on this complex topic, the lack of a subcommittee
to work on the SLT and the lack of meetings dedicated to this topic demand
further research. Riordan commented the judgment
of the Commission should be based on facts not opinions whether they are public
or political. He wanted to see facts
regarding the environmental impact statements which he believed to be the
strongest and most important statements given.
Riordan continued,
discussing the cost factor of a southern route compared with a bridge over the
river. He stated the KTA had never had
interest or intent in building a bridge over the river. Riordan suggested the letter was incorrect to
evaluate safety issues without first determining a specific alternate
route. Riordan asked the Commission to
study the issue and make a considered decision after going through the
appropriate process.
Krebs stated she did not
agree with the comparison with subdivision regulations, that the SLT carries
less weight than the subdivision regulations.
She said the letter is a resolution stating the opinion of the
Commission which does not require the level of scrutiny the subdivision
regulations require. Krebs maintained
that while the specifics of the letter may be difficult to support, perhaps the
Commission can agree on encouraging the FHWA to explore an alternative for the
eastern bypass option. Krebs reminded
the Commission that the time to respond is limited and the letter should
reflect a consensus of opinion.
Riordan expressed that he
has no issues with a statement in support of an eastern parkway but voiced
concerns regarding abandoning the adopted route.
Haase stated the need to
make a strong argument in front of the Federal Highway Administration and feels
there are prudent alternatives to a southern route.
Burress said the letter is
misdrafted regarding the cost comparison and the letter should have said the
alternative is cheaper than the current plan as it drops the southern route. Burress continued the facts were different
than 5 years ago as the KTA decided to put in an interchange north of Eudora.
Riordan stated there are no
facts presented in the letter, only opinions.
Krebs indicated Burress
was correct stating the Eastern Bypass was already in plans so the money will
be spent.
Riordan said the Eastern Bypass
was looked at as prudent alternative to SLT but he is more in favor of southern route. Riordan doubts we can locally build a bridge;
the State has indicated they have no interesting in building a bridge and the KTA
stated they will not build a bridge.
Haase commented that in
his meeting with KDOT and in City Commission meetings, the Eastern Bypass is
the #2 priority project in
Erickson indicated she is not
saying there should not be a southern route.
The EIS did not do a good job anticipating growth.
Haase discussed Plan 95 and
described the beltway system. He stated
the SLT formula would bring 6 lanes of traffic through the heart of
Ermeling commented that roads
are to move traffic and she believes moving traffic is the top priority. She is not convinced it has to be beltway
concept; she is not against the beltway but would like to look at other
possible alternatives to assess impact, cost and functional use. Ermeling
indicated the source of traffic problems are the lack of grids west of
Harris said she researched
the 4f process on the internet. FHWA will
compare the
Lawson stated he is not
against the Eastern Bypass. He stated
all the Commissioners have the heartfelt belief
Burress looked up National
Natural Landmarks on the internet and the Baker Wetlands is listed but it does
not carry any land use restrictions, only power and persuasion. Burress stated it is of some significance and
there are only 5 in the State of
He commented on road
design, expressing that freeways are useless for cities like
Krebs encouraged the
Commission to act and send a specific letter as the Commission’s opinion. Krebs stated if the Commission could not
support the specifics, perhaps concepts could be decided ands supported
rejecting the
Burress agreed that the
letter is not perfect but contains specifics with prudent alternatives that
will garner attention.
Haase called for a straw
poll to gauge interest in sending a letter in some form from the MPO. Vote was 8-2 with Burress, Eichhorn,
Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan in the affirmative and
Lawson and
Haase called for a second
straw poll to support Haase’s letter and send it to the FHWA .
Vote was 5-5 with Burress, Erickson, Ermeling,
Haase, Krebs in the affirmative and Eichhorn,
Harris outlined some
specific wording changes regarding traffic control devices, costs and community
disruption for the alternative suggested in the letter. She said she may
support sending a version of this letter if there were some changes in the
wording. Harris outlined the specific
wording changes requested outlining devices, costs and community disruption.
Haase stated support for
giving Commissioner Harris editing authority over the letter.
Harris asked Eichhorn to
assist her in the editing process.
ACTION TAKEN
Burress moved to support
the letter in principle, recognizing it needs some redrafting and to appoint
Harris to edit and redraft the letter; the letter will be circulated to the
Planning Commission for 4 days during which any Commissioner can make
suggestions for edits. The letter will
be sent by the Chair and postmarked by the 31st of May.
Lawson seconded the
motion.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Riordan stated he will
vote against the motion citing difficulty with the letter. Although he supports the Eastern Bypass, he
does not agree with the content of the letter.
Erickson commented that it
is important that the Commission send the letter.
Ermeling agreed with
Erickson.
Haase said the Commission
should consider a resolution that states the Planning Commission is divided but
all agree that additional review of an alternative is necessary.
Burress noted that he
would like to send letter.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor to
support the letter in principle.
Motion carried 7-3.
Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris and Krebs in the affirmative. Opposed
Recess at 8:55 p.m.
Reconvene at 9:15 p.m.
FOR PLANNING
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
(PUBLIC
HEARING HAS BEEN HELD):
PC Minutes 5/24/06
ITEM NO.
17: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 4 AND 5 TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF
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
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Riordan stated public
comment will be allowed on Items 17-19. He suggested moving the discussion of the subdivision
regulations to the front and discuss them first. Riordan thought the Commission may want the
items contained in Attachment 6 and the supplemental list of issues as a
starting point to look at the items and identify those they can support or not
support. He also suggested a
subcommittee of 4 to convene over the next months and draft alternative
language that could be considered in July; the committee should have
recommendations to the Planning Commission prepared for the June PC meeting.
Riordan asked to defer zoning and H2020 changes until the June meeting. Riordan asked Eichhorn, Lawson, Haase and
Harris to be on the committee.
Burress questioned what
will happen if the Commission does not produce subdivision regulations sooner
than July.
Stogsdill replied that existing
regulations will remain in effect; the
Burress asked if the 2
month time frame sounded reasonable.
Stogsdill advised it is extremely
ambitious and explained the process for public hearing items and posting
requirements. She continued that if the committee were to
make recommendations within 30 days, the Planning Commission would need to make
a decision in one meeting. Stogsdill
suggested setting a special meeting in mid-August to deal with this specific
topic apart from the regular agenda.
Burress asked if the
committee believed they can produce a result in a month.
Haase commented that the answer
may reside in what direction the committee receives from the Commission
regarding revisions.
Harris stated that she
believed it’s possible.
There was continued
discussion regarding the scheduling of meeting dates and availability of the
Commissioners. It was concluded that
there will be three Planning Commission meetings in August. August 21st will be slated to
specifically address these three items which will allow the BCC to hear them in
mid-September.
PUBLIC HEARING
Pat Ireland, county resident, stated that
the proposed regulations are a knife in the heart of rural
Eichhorn asked if
Lawson commented that he appreciated
Close public hearing.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Riordan asked for concepts
for the committee to guide them.
Haase recommended the PC
start with a straw vote on how many commissioners agree with his bubble diagram. He heard that the BCC would favor eliminating
all subdivisions outside of the UGA. Haase
commented that there is a need for a build-out plan so that subdivisions inside
UGA could be annexed and support access management standards can be defined. He
believed if the commission agreed, it is adequate instruction to give to the
committee. The Rural Subcommitte
suggested build-out is essential. The
question is whether conservation cluster development occur within the UGA in a
way that does not compromise the build-out concept.
A discussion followed
regarding a balloon diagram presented by Haase in regards to the Rural
Development Regulations. Haase clarified
the diagram and asked for consensus on the connected balloon items above the
green line.
Eichhorn believed the
incentives concept is too over reaching and an item that should be explored in
a mid-month meeting.
Ermeling restated Lawson’s
comment that concerns about the enjoyment of open space could be handled
through a TDR.
Haase indicated the
conservation cluster development needs to be limited to actual permanent
conservation easements and it has to address ground that is worthy of
conservation. He continued that it cannot
come out of committee as a development tool of choice because it provides too
much flexibility. Absent being able to
turn it into a true identification of conservation assets and permanent
easements then Haase believed it needs to be eliminated.
Krebs disagreed feeling it
is in the Commission’s best interest to leave it in and require permanent
conservation easements.
Haase clarified that it is
a development mechanism that will allow widespread development unplanned inside
the UGA and that is contrary to the Commission’s number one objective.
Burress stated that the
conservation easements will be on land that cannot be built through and did not
believe those concerns are addressed in the bubble chart. He queried whether the committee should be
allowed to make that judgment.
Haase responded that the committee will work diligently
on a recipe that this Commission will adopt and that will be looked upon
favorably by the City and
Lawson questioned Haase
regarding one of the issues with conservation easements and the proposal that the
easement would go away at the time of annexation. In one of Haase’s renderings, the
conservation easement would be in perpetuity; did Haase suggest alternate text
to require the conservation easement to be subject to permanent easement?
Haase replied that the
asset would have to qualify as worthy of conservation and that under those
circumstances, it would then be subject to a permanent conservation
easement. As the proposed regulation is
currently written the owner of 20-40 acres can arbitrarily declare part as a
conversation easement and that ground can be used to satisfy the need for
lateral fields on 1 acre development sites.
As currently written, it provides the ability to develop 3 acre sites
anywhere in the UGA where you have 20-40 acres and upon annexation, that site
loses its conservation status.
Lawson commented that he
sees the use of conservation easement as a heavy hammer and struggles with the
idea that the county could wind up with tracts of ground that would be locked
up and unusable for anything forever.
Haase replied that the tract
of ground that would fall under a conservation easement would be worthy of that
designation; under those circumstances the community benefits. He stated that green space assets should be
identified and preserved and the conservation concept needs to have teeth in
order for it not to be abused. Haase continued that part of what the Commission
should want to do is have a program that will conserve assets in the county
but not provide a tool that allows
development abuse in the UGA; subdivision development within the UGA needs to
take a form whereby it will be redeveloped after annexation.
Lawson stated that he does
not disagree but it will be difficult to accept perpetual easements.
Eichhorn commented that in
doing permanent easements, those would be the only places allowed to have
subdivisions. Ms. Finger stated in a
previous meeting that the intent is not to have a lateral field be where the
easement areas are located.
Riordan replied that Ms.
Finger indicated there would be a minimum of 3 acres and 1 acre lots would not
be allowed; 3 acres would be the smallest, including the lateral fields. He questioned how much those that own land
should be able to subdivide it for reasons they think are logical versus the
community’s need to have the ability to specifically redevelop that land as it
is incorporated into the city. Riordan
did not see problems with the bubble diagram and agreed with Burress that the
detail of how to implement the diagram is subject to debate.
Krebs said the
conservation cluster developments allow for development of 20-40 acres without a
conservation easement set aside if the land is within the UGA, but the
requirement is that 40% be set aside for future development. She asked if the Commission is going to
create an incentive system for conservation easements; if the land is worth
preserving and it is put in a conservation easement then the property owner
becomes eligible to do conservation cluster developments. With the incentive there is an opportunity to
develop on a smaller plot of land and there may be the opportunity to develop
without a build-through plan.
Haase stated a 20 acre
parcel is too small to pre-plan; 40 acres is smallest parcel for future
planning.
Krebs replied that if
incentive is to conserve, instead we need to create a system where people
conserve to develop smaller parcels of land for them to develop.
Haase said if it were adopted
as written, the conservation cluster development will be the development
instrument of choice.
Riordan replied that if
conservation easements are created then an entity has to be created and funded
with the state and it will be used minimally.
Conservation easements have to be dedicated and go through the
state.
Stogsdill commented that
Ms. Finger had stated that the conservation easements could be dedicated to the
Kansas Land Trust and a fee must be paid.
Krebs stated that the
regulations do not match with the statement of purpose although the intent is
to preserve.
Haase said the committee
will need to investigate the costs for conservation easements.
Burress replied the build-through
approach and the prevention of sprawl along with the contiguity rule is not
fully understood. Contiguity is in H2020
but it is being given up entirely on a theory that is untested. Burress continued that they may be trading
something everyone knows will work with something that may not. He pointed out they do not want to wind up creating
a development pattern that is sprawling, inefficient and is going to cost a
great deal in services. He questioned if
it is really better than what we have now.
Haase replied that his
sense is that all subdivision development outside the UGA be will eliminated
which also eliminates the contiguity argument.
Contiguity has only one outcome,
it makes it more cost effective to serve the developments if they are clustered
in the county but by eliminating subdivision development outside the UGA that
goal is accomplished; subdivisions will be in proximity to one another and close
to the urban core. He continued, there
are so many subdivisions in the county today that if subdivision development
can go forward anywhere in the county as long as it is contiguous to another
subdivision, it opens the door for a great deal of deep rural development.
Burress commented that inside
the UGA there is a danger of setting up provisions that it is okay to build
anywhere which will create a lot of service problems for the county.
Eichhorn agreed with
Burress but stated there is not much to be done except throw away what has been
given and start over again.
Riordan said modifying the
current subdivision regulation proposal would be better than the existing
regulations and starting over would be ineffective.
Haase replied the way the current
regulations exist does not prevent sprawl.
Making changes now can be better than waiting and experiencing
undesirable outcomes.
Burress stated the tradeoff
is gaining the rural areas and losing the UGA.
Riordan commented he is
confident the committee will make progress and the UGA will not be lost.
Lawson said the committee
will create a plan they can agree upon.
ACTION TAKEN
Haase motioned to empower
the committee to develop regulations that include the concept of the bubble
diagram, the content of the minutes of the May meeting, the direction that has
been offered to the committee and bring back for consideration by the full
commission proposed revisions based upon the subdivision regulations currently
in front of the Commission.
Krebs seconded and amended
that the Commission discuss the text amendments at the July mid-month
meeting.
Harris offered a friendly
amendment that the Commission consider only the connected bubbles in diagram.
Stogsdill clarified that
bubbles 1, 3 & 4 are considered in the current motion. 2 is separate and anything that crosses or
below the line is separate.
Motion is unanimous 10-0
FOR PLANNING
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
(PUBLIC
HEARING HAS BEEN HELD):
PC Minutes 5/24/06
ITEM NO.
18 : ADOPTION OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR
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
ACTION TAKEN
Krebs moved to defer items
17, 18, 19 to the August 21st meeting
Harris seconded.
Motion
carried unanimously, 10-0.
FOR PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
(PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN HELD):
PC Minutes 5/24/06
ITEM NO.
19: AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 6, 7, AND 18 IN THE ZONING REGULATIONS
FOR THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF
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
ACTION TAKEN
Krebs moved to defer items
17, 18, 19 to the August 21st meeting
Harris seconded.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Haase motioned to adjourn
at 10:20 p.m.
Krebs seconded.
Motion carried
unanimously, 10-0
ADJOURN- 10:20 p.m. May 24, 2006
Official
minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.