PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 26 & 28, 2006
Meeting Minutes
________________________________________________________________________
Commissioners present: Burress, Haase,
Staff present: Stogsdill, Day, A. Miller, Leininger and Pool
________________________________________________________________________
COMMUNICATIONS
Item
2B – Final Plat for LMH Addition
Item
3 – CUP for
Item
4 – Hierarchy of Plans
Item
5 – Text Amendment to Chapter 20 of Development Code
Misc.
Item No. 2 – Revisions to PC By-Laws
Items
11A & 11B – Rezonings and PDP for Prairie Wind Homes
Other
Miscellaneous
MINUTES
Motioned by Harris,
seconded by Eichhorn to approve the minutes of the April 17 & 19, 2006
meeting as revised per Study Session discussion.
Motion carried 8-0-1, with Finkeldei abstaining because he
was not on the Commission at that time.
Motioned by Harris,
seconded by Eichhorn to approve the minutes of the May 22 & 24, 2006
meeting as revised per Study Session discussion.
Motion carried 8-0-1, with Finkeldei abstaining because he
was not on the Commission at that time.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
CPC: The committee is continuing its work on
establishing neighborhood plans
T2030: The committee received information on the
eastern bypass and the SLT, discussing how these elements related to the MPO’s
long-range transportation goals. They
also directed Staff to:
·
Develop a schedule for public outreach sessions to comply with federal
regulations on public input;
·
Gather information on the implications for our region of the inter-modal
freight depots beginning operation in
·
Set up meetings with representatives from adjacent counties to discuss
the arterial road systems
RZO: The Committee met multiple times in the last
month to discuss what is being referred to as the “bubble flow chart”. They met with the
CDC: The committee discussed the SmartCode tables
and an RFP for hiring a consultant.
PCMM: The Commission met with the City Commission
to discuss the text amendment for retail market studies and standards for
implementation, which were included on tonight’s regular agenda.
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS /
DEFERRAL REQUEST
·
Lawson said he received a phone call from a party
involved in Item 3. They discussed
format and protocol, and Lawson advised the caller to submit concerns to Staff
in writing.
·
Finkeldei said he would recuse himself from Item
3.
·
There were no deferral requests to consider.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR
2006-2007
Motioned
by Eichhorn, seconded by Harris to nominate Krebs as the 2006-2007 Chair. There were no other nominations.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Motioned
by Harris, seconded by Lawson to nominate Eichhorn as the 2006-2007
Vice-Chair. There were no other
nominations.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item
1 was pulled from the Consent Agenda.
Swearing in of witnesses.
PC Minutes
ITEM NO. 1: FINAL PLAT FOR
STEVENS ADDITION 2ND PLAT; NORTHWEST CORNER N 800 ROAD AND E 1500
ROAD (SLD)
PF-05-12-06: Final Plat for Stevens Addition 2nd
Plat, a replat of
Item
1 was pulled from the Consent Agenda
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the item, a request to replat a
single parcel within an existing rural subdivision. The parcel had been noted as a private park
on the original plat, and the applicant requested the replat to allow use of
the property for a single-family residence.
Ms. Day showed the location of the subject
property on the corner of the second phase of Quantrill Acres subdivision.
Staff explained that several members of the public
were present, but they had been informed ahead of time that this was typically
a non-public hearing item. It was within
the Commission’s purview to open the item for public comment.
Other points were noted:
APPLICANT
PRESENTATION
John Selk spoke on behalf of the property owner,
saying his client had obtained a legal opinion that the subject parcel was
privately owned and maintained, and the owner had the right to pursue
residential development if he chose. Mr.
Selk said it made sense to develop this parcel to conform with the rest of the subdivision,
and that the area was not currently used for any public/neighborhood use.
Mr. Selk responded to several questions:
The Commission agreed unanimously to open the
floor for public comment on this item.
PUBLIC
HEARING
Richard Hewitt, senior member of the Architectural
Control Committee, said other members of the committee would have been present
if they had known they would be allowed to speak. Mr. Hewitt stated that the previous owner,
Mrs. Anderson, had agreed to make the subject parcel a park at the request of
the
Mr. Hewitt said the neighborhood used the subject
area “at least for an annual meeting.”
He said the area was a “showpiece for the Quantrill area…enhancing and
identifying it.” He said it had always
been “intended that there would be no building on this site.”
Mr. Hewitt said he had repainted the entry sign,
which was made of concrete block and was a welcome sign and entry marker for
residents, visitors, and potential buyers.
The speaker made several other comments:
Haase asked if any attempt had been made by area
residents to jointly purchase the subject area.
Mr. Hewitt said if they had know the previous owner intended to sell the
land, he thought “they would have been happy to pitch in and buy it.” Haase asked if this was something that might
still be considered. Mr. Hewitt
responded that he thought “we are way beyond that.”.
Burress asked if Mr. Hewitt perceived that he had
some kind of legal right to enjoy that park (the subject area) as part of his own
property. Mr. Hewitt replied that seeing
it on the plat was an incentive behind his own land purchase, and that it was
intended by the (previous) developer to be used by residents of both Quantrill
Acres and Quantrill Overlook.
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, asked
to clarify for the record that the subject property is not within the designated
floodplain. He said the
Mr. Werner referenced the
existing sign, saying this was a 5 acre lot, and there should be plenty of room
to accommodate the proposed single-family home and the relocated sign.
Mr. Werner responded to
questioning that the applicant would be amenable to working with the area
Architectural Review Committee on a design for the proposed house.
STAFF
CLOSING COMMENTS
Ms. Day said one area resident had indicated to
Staff that she had discussed a possible sale of the property with the property
owner. The sale had not occurred because
“the price for this individual parcel was out of [her] range.”
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
Burress asked to what extent a property owner had
a “right to plat.” Ms. Day said this was
more of a legal question, but it was Staff’s understanding that if a person
owned a piece of land and could meet the requirements of the Subdivision
Regulations, they did have the ability to submit for a replat.
The applicant responded to questioning that the
applicant took ownership of the subject property in 1993. It was assumed that he did not intend to
develop the land for his personal residence, since he currently lived directly
across the road this lot. Haase
suggested that this information was not germane to the Commission’s review.
Harris asked if the applicant would be willing to
discuss the possibility of selling the land to the area residents. Mr. Werner replied that he was hesitant to
say, “yes”, because he did not want the project deferred unnecessarily. He pointed out that discussions of this
nature would not be precluded by the Commission’s approval of tonight’s
proposal.
The Commission asked if Mr. Hewitt had additional
comments. He stated that the previous
owner/developer had made a verbal agreement that the subject area would remain
a park area in perpetuity, but this was never put into writing. It was suggested that this left the area
residents some line of action toward the previous owner, but the current
applicant had done nothing to prevent his proposed use of the land.
Some Commissioners agreed that approving the plat
would not prevent discussions taking place about a possible purchase of the
land. However, some felt this “got the
ball rolling” in the direction of development.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by
1.
Provision of a revised Final Plat to add a note that prohibits direct
access to N 800 Road;
2.
Execution of an agreement regarding the provision of a water meter for
the proposed lot; and
3.
Provision of the following fees and recording
documentation:
a.
Copy of paid property tax receipt; and
b.
Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
Motion
carried unanimously, 9-0.
PC Minutes
ITEM NO. 2A : USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR
EXPANSION AT
UPR-04-04-06:
Use Permitted upon Review request for the expansion
of
PC Minutes
ITEM NO. 2B : FINAL PLAT FOR
PF-05-13-06: Final Plat for
Items 2A & 2B were
discussed simultaneously
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Pool introduced the items, a UPR and a Final
Plat for expansion and modification of
In Staff’s opinion, further evaluation of several
Master Plan elements was needed and, therefore, deferral of the UPR was
recommended. Specific elements Staff
would like to review further included:
Staff supported the proposed vacation of
right-of-way within the 300 block of
APPLICANT
PRESENTATION
C.L. Mauer, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf
of the applicant. He said the applicant
had recently met with the Transit Advisory Board. The Board expressed no opposition to the
proposal and indicated that changing the transit route to go through the
hospital property would improve transit service in the area. The applicant was not able to get these
comments in writing in time for this meeting.
Regarding drainage issues, the applicant was
unclear as to what additional information Staff wanted. Mr. Mauer explained how existing drainage
problems would be improved with this proposal.
Other points were made:
Mr. Mauer said the applicant knew that additional
work with Staff will be needed, but would like to continue moving forward in
the process. He responded to questioning
that deferral of both the UPR and Final Plat could potentially keep the
applicant from pulling a building permit in August as needed to complete the
proposal before the construction season ended.
It was clarified that the next project phase included internal building
renovations. Mr. Mauer explained that
parking changes would need to happen concurrently with the internal changes to
consistently provide usable parking areas.
Haase pointed out that the “improved” bus routes
could be accomplished even without this proposal and asked why the transit
service did not make these changes before.
Mr. Mauer was not able to address this specific question, but said the
Transit Advisory Board had not recognized this potential for improved services
until they looked at this proposal.
It was discussed that the hospital grounds are
owned by the City of
Harris asked if the applicant had considered
keeping
Ms. Stogsdill provided clarification on why Staff
was willing to recommend approval of a Final Plat that vacated right-of-way
when the street design was in question.
She said vacating the right-of-way changed setback requirements, giving
the applicant flexibility to manipulate parking arrangements. She added that this r-o-w vacation did not
give the hospital board full control of the parking lot design– the City
maintained the authority to review site plans for all expansions or
modifications of the site. Staff
recommendation for deferral of the UPR was based on the evolving Hospital
Master Plan – the plan had simply not been stable long enough for proper review
by staff and ample time had not been provided for input from the neighborhood.
Ms. Stogsdill responded to questioning that Staff
could attempt to complete the necessary review in time for the July meeting,
but a deferral to August might be more realistic.
PUBLIC
HEARING – on UPR only
Kelly Driscoll, area resident, said she was happy to see
growth in the area, but noted that residents were overpowered by hospital
property in this part of the Pinckney Neighborhood. Ms. Driscoll said not many people were going
to be as directly impacted as she would be by this project, and they had not
been given adequate notice (time) to respond to the latest version of the plan.
Ms. Driscoll referenced previous comments that but
stops were not located on private property, saying there was a bus stop sign
directly in front of her house. She also
asked about the possibility of a stop light at 4th & Maine
Streets, saying this was completely unnecessary. She asked if the placement of this stop light
would remove mature trees from her yard, which provided her only visual barrier
to the hospital.
Mehrdad Givechi, traffic engineer for the project,
clarified that no new traffic signals were proposed as part of this
project. The Level of Service at these
intersections would be improved using other measures (Ex. left-turn lanes). If traffic volumes required additional
measures, a 4-way stop would be considered.
The newest addendum to the application included these elements (this
addendum was provided after the Staff Report and Commissioner packets were
complete).
Burress asked Mr. Givechi to discuss with Ms.
Driscoll how the traffic changes would impact her property.
Gwen Klingenberg spoke on behalf of the Pinckney Neighborhood
Association, agreeing with previous speakers that the plan had changed
significantly since the neighborhood had seen it last and that more review time
was needed.
APPLICANT
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Mauer responded to the previous speaker’s
concerns, saying the applicant was willing to work with the City to improve
STAFF
CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no additional comments.
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
Burress asked what steps could be taken to improve
neighborhood notice. Staff said the most
important step in that process was to provide adequate review time with a
static plan. In this case, changes were
happening too frequently to keep the neighborhood up-to-date on each
revision. This was the basis for Staffs’
recommendation for deferral.
Ms. Stogsdill responded to questioning that a
one-month deferral would be challenging for Staff, but they would do their best
to complete the necessary review on that schedule, provided the applicant could
supply the needed information.
It was discussed that approving the Final Plat
gave the applicant and Staff a footprint to work with. Burress said he was uncomfortable vacating
right-of-way without seeing a development plan.
He was hesitant to change the existing grid street pattern without
seeing how the new street design would work.
Burress spoke about the value of the grid street
pattern as a highly-adaptable system, providing many alternative routes for
traffic.
Item 2A
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Harris to defer
Item 2A to the July 2006 meeting.
Motion carried
unanimously, 9-0
Item 2B
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Finkeldei to
approve the Final Plat for Lawrence Memorial Hospital Addition and forward it
to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, subject to the
following conditions:
1.
Provision of the following fees and documentation:
a.
A current copy of a paid property tax receipt.
b.
Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
c.
A completed Master Street Tree Plan in accordance with Section
21-708a.3.
d.
A Temporary Utility Agreement.
2.
Pinning of both
lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.
3.
Revision of the plat to include the following:
a.
Notation of vacation of
b.
Notation of which easements are existing and proposed.
c.
Additional utility easements to accommodate the sanitary sewer and
water mains as shown on the City’s Geographic Information Systems map.
d.
Notation of the 80-foot utility easement within the vacated
e.
Additional drainage easements to accommodate the stormwater mains as
shown on the City’s Geographic Information Systems map.
f.
Notation of the off-site drainage easements along the northern and eastern
sides of Woody Park.
g.
Notation of the Floodplain Overlay District which touches Woody Park.
h.
Notation of the long-term lease with
Motion carried 5-4, with
Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Haase,
10 minute
recess – reconvene at
PC Minutes
ITEM NO. 3: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR
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
Finkeldei was recused.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Pool introduced the item, a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for an 8-unit residential development for adults with
developmental disabilities. She outlined
the general details of the proposal:
Staff recommended approval of the CUP, subject to
conditions listed in the Staff Report.
Among these conditions was a 10 year sunset on the CUP, at which time
the applicant would need to apply for a new CUP or renewal of the existing CUP. Staff also recommended a 5-year review
period, providing an opportunity for the
APPLICANT
PRESENTATION
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf
of the applicant and introduced other CLO representatives. He said CLO understood when they bought the
property that they would be able to develop the land under County standards in
place at that time. They asked Landplan
to help them design a project that would maximize benefits for CLO clientele,
preserve the rural character of the area and minimize their impact on
surroundings. Elements designed to
achieve these goals included:
Mr. Herndon elaborated on the applicant’s provision
of plans showing how each homesite could be platted separately – all according
to County regulations for access, setbacks and minimum lot size - if such a
need arose in the future.
Mr. Herndon asked the Commission to consider
revisions to Staffs’ recommended conditions as follows:
Krebs asked why the proposal was being made as a
CUP instead a rezoning and plat. Staff
explained the County regulations listed a number of operations that could be
considered as a CUP, which included non-profit organizations.
Mr. Herndon responded to questions from the Commission:
Mike Strauss, Executive Director of CLO, responded
to questions about special (increased) emergency needs. He said CLO clients had a wide variety of
needs, just like any other segment of the general population. Potential residents were evaluated based on
these needs. He explained that the
development would serve two kinds of CLO clients – those that resided on the
property would be able and willing to deal with the rigors of the rural
lifestyle. Other clients would be able
to visit the development to experience rural/agricultural activities in the
short-term.
Mr. Strauss also addressed questions about why
extra information was being provided about potential subdivision of the
property. He said CLO had a successful
track record with similar developments in similar settings and saw no reason
why this proposal would not be successful, as well. However, they responded to Staff’s request
that they show how, if the proposal was not fulfilled, the land could still be developed
in full accordance with County regulations.
Burress asked why such a remote location was
chosen, outside the UGA and so far from public services. Mr. Strauss said a site search was done to
find a location fitting certain criteria, including accessibility to
PUBLIC
HEARING
Susanne Ashley, 549 E. 2000 Road, asked questions about how
CLO proposed to deal with the regular hardships of rural living. She expressed concern about providing
adequate, accessible storm shelters and the contamination risks of building a
swimming pool near livestock pens. Show of hands to indicate agreement with the
speaker’s comments.
Kathy Wright, 2073 N. 600 Road, expressed skepticism
about the studies done in preparation for the proposal that stated the
development would have “no impact” on existing development. She said it was impossible that any new development
would not create additional traffic, noise and light. Ms. K. Wright said the proposal was too big
and she was afraid of its negative effect on her “simple way of life.” Show of
hands to indicate agreement with the speaker’s comments.
Linda Wright, 2045 N. 600 Road, spoke about the
underlying soil makeup and how this made it likely that water entering the
creek bed would ultimately pollute the watershed. She said she had understood her own property
was far enough outside the UGA that she would not have to face a potential
development of this size and density.
Mrs. L. Wright said the residents did not receive enough notification,
they were surprised at Staff’s recommendation for approval, and they would like
more answers before the project was allowed to move ahead.
There was a show of hands indicating those present
who did or did not receive notification.
It was generally agreed that notice letters were received on June 19th,
although some still had not received a letter.
Calvin Hausnan, 82 E. 2200 Road, said this was a noble
cause, but he was concerned about safety on N. 2100 Road. He said he moved heavy machinery on this
steep section of road often as part of his business, and these roads were in poor
condition with small shoulders. He
echoed comments that this was a rural area and he wanted it to stay that
way. Show
of hands to indicate agreement with the speaker’s comments.
Don Arnold, area resident, said the water for his property
came exclusively from hand-dug wells, and that he relied on this water supply
to maintain his home-based business (raising/selling fish). He was concerned that the water supply could
be polluted by the new development.
Ron Wright, 2045 N. 600 Road, said he was the 5th
generation of his family to live on his 65-acre property. The character of the area had always been
rural and this would be ruined with this development. Mr. Wright said the proposal “in no way
conforms to the County definition of agricultural uses.” He said this was really a subdivision, with
double the number of houses than had been built in the area over the last 25
years and triple the traffic. Show of hands to indicate agreement with the
speaker’s comments.
Carole Peters, 549 E. 2000 Road, said she and her sister
lived in the area with two developmentally-challenged adults. They raised farm stock and their land hosted
many wild animals. Ms. Peters joined her
neighbors in their concern that the new development would negatively impact her
rural lifestyle. She suggested that CLO’s
intent to provide rural living experiences for people with developmental
disabilities was fine, but it should be accomplished by finding other foster
situations like her own, instead of the proposed “amusement park” being
proposed. Show of hands to indicate agreement with the speaker’s comments.
Larry Limbergh, resident on N. 1600 Road, agreed with
previous speakers that he was not given nearly enough time to react to the
proposal. He expressed concern that the
proposed homes would all be identical, “lined up like matchsticks along the
road,” and about the possibility that the homes would eventually be sold
off. Mr. Limbergh said it was not
unreasonable to expect answers to the residents’ many questions before the
Commission took action. Show of hands to indicate agreement with the
speaker’s comments.
Betty Otto, 1319
Bill Morrison, resident on E. 2000 Road, said he lived a
mile away from the subject area but had received no notice of the
proposal. He asked if he faced
additional liability issues and would need to provide additional protection on
his own property (Ex. fencing around his pond).
David Crabtree, 557 E. 2100 Road, said the Staff Report
raised many questions that were not adequately addressed by the applicant,
specifying questions 5 & 6.
Joel Saunders, 639 E 2100 Road, said his mother lived within
1000 feet of proposed development, and the watershed was on her property, owned
in conjunction with the State of
Eichhorn commented that the Rural Zoning Committee
was working through many of these issues on a County-wide basis with the
10:30 – The
Commission agreed unanimously to extend the meeting 45 minutes
APPLICANT CLOSING
COMMENTS
Mr. Strauss said the rural lifestyle is not for
everyone. Those who choose to live in
the unincorporated areas do so with a full understanding of the challenges and
difficulties inherent with this location.
The intent of this project is to provide rural living opportunities for
CLO clients who make that choice (for the rural lifestyle) with the same deliberation
as any other individual. CLO is aware of
the extra considerations needed to support their clients in this lifestyle, and
has many (70+) homes within three counties.
Mr. Strauss addressed concerns raised about public
safety and welfare, saying this project would be subject to the same reviews
and regulations as any other rural residential project, with additional
conditions and reviews as a CUP. He
provided specifics of how the development would meet these requirements at the
request of Comm. Burress:
Mr. Strauss said CLO was dedicated to providing
for the needs of the clients, but felt it was equally important to be a good
neighbor. For this reason, CLO was
prepared to agree to develop only four of the proposed homes during the first
period of the CUP. He suggested
development of the other four homes after the outcome of the first 10-year
review.
Lawson wondered if deferring the item might allow
the proposal to return with different comments and more community support. The applicant replied that any rural project
would be met with opposition and it was not likely that area residents would
change their stance until the development was in operation and they saw how
well it fit the area.
STAFF
CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
It was discussed that the subject property had
enough road frontage to build four residences with no special reviews or
permits according to current County development standards. If the County regulations were adopted as
being discussed by the
Haase explained for the benefit of the public how
to file a protest petition. Several
Commissioners said they would support deferral of the item and encouraged
additional applicant/resident meetings in hopes of coming back with less
conflict. Others added that they were
interested in the possibility of lower density and pursuing the 4-house option
mentioned by the applicant.
Mr. Herndon said it was understood that the
applicant was responsible for arranging a meeting with area residents. There was discussion about what should be
discussed at these meetings and what changes the Commission would like to see
when the project returned:
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Eichhorn to defer
Item 3 to the August 2006 meeting.
Motion
carried 8-0-1, with Finkeldei recused.
Extend
meeting 15 minutes
PC Minutes
ITEM NO. 4: HIERARCHY OF PLANS (MJL)
Consider adoption of Hierarchy of Plans.
STAFF
PRESENTATION
Ms. Leininger introduced the item, a chart
outlining different types of plans and the general elements making up each kind
of plan. She explained revisions made
per discussion at the January 2006 meeting, including:
Staff was asked to respond to the suggestions from
the League of Women Voters. Ms.
Leininger said Staff had no objection to revising language about water sheds as
proposed, but there was some concern about including language about
neighborhood plans for areas that did not have an existing Neighborhood
Association. She explained that the
boundaries of the neighborhood plan were defined by and conformed to the
boundaries of the neighborhood association.
Without an association, there was no clear way to define the needed plan
boundaries.
Haase asked for examples of similar actions,
asking what legal weight this document would carry. Ms. Stogsdill referenced the development
policy adopted to regulate what parties paid for street improvements.
PUBLIC
HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
Burress said the League’s point about the need for
a detailed list of elements found in each kind of plan was well taken, but he
did not feel this document was the appropriate place to list those details.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Erickson to adopt
the Hierarchy of Plans as presented.
Motioned by Burress to amend the motion on the
floor to include the language regarding water sheds as proposed by the League
of Women Voters to and to revise the definition of a neighborhood plan to state:
“Plans that encompass a
specific established neighborhood association, or an area that could be covered
by a neighborhood association. If a
neighborhood association exists, the boundaries of the neighborhood plan shall
conform to those of the neighborhood association. If no neighborhood association exists, the
boundaries of the neighborhood plan shall be defined using other methods.”
DISCUSSION
ON THE MOTION
Staff expressed concern about allowing for
initiation of a neighborhood plan in areas where no neighborhood association
was present to define the plan boundaries.
Burress said this was intentional.
Eichhorn commented that the CPC was currently working on the question of,
“What is a neighborhood and how are its boundaries defined?”
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to amend the original
motion to revise identified sections of text as suggested by the League of
Women Voters.
The
amendment was accepted without objection.
Motion on the floor was to adopt the Hierarchy of
Plans as presented by Staff, with revisions to the language regarding water
shed plans and neighborhood plans as discussed, and forwarding the documents to
the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for
their concurrence.
Motion
carried unanimously, 9-0.
PC Minutes
ITEM NO. 5: TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20
DEVELOPMENT CODE (SMS)
TA-05-03-06:
Consider revisions to Chapter 20, Development Code to
correct inconsistencies identified since originally updated.
Item 5 was deferred due to the late hour to the Wednesday meeting with a
7-2 vote, Burress & Finkeldei in opposition.
STAFF
PRESENTATION
Ms.
Stogsdill introduced the item, a proposed two-part amendment to Chapter 20 of
the Zoning Ordinance. For clarity, Staff referred to these two parts as Item 5A
and 5B.
Item
5A was initiated by the Planning Commission in April 2006 and clarified that
the Planning and City Commissions would have the ability to limit building
types and uses in Planning Unit Developments.
Item
5B involved a list of identified inconsistencies and the need for clarification
in the new development code document.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission initiate these items for
public hearing in July 2006. Ms.
Stogsdill gave an overview of this list, asking for specific input from the
Commission on the following items:
PUBLIC HEARING - Item 5A only
No
member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
There
was discussion about the intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines restriction
against residential uses on the street level of
ACTION TAKEN
Item 5A
Motioned
by Haase, seconded by
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
Item 5B
Motioned by Finkeldei,
seconded by Harris to initiate all items on the list prepared by Staff for
public hearing in July 2006, with the addition of the two items from Article 5
identified in tonight’s Staff memo.
Motion
carried unanimously, 8-0.
PC Minutes
MISC. ITEM NO. 1: OLD BUSINESS
Adoption of Standards for
Retail Impact Studies (Deferred from
Misc. Item 1 was deferred to the Wednesday meeting with a 7-2 vote,
Burress & Finkeldei in opposition.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Miller introduced the item, the proposed Standards for Retail
Impact Studies developed by an ad hoc committee to the Planning
Commission. Tonight’s proposed document
had been revised according to comments made when the full Commission saw the
draft version in April 2006.
There was discussion about the broad range of information in the
document and what how this information was intended for use.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
A formula error was noted in the document.
It was verified that the Planning
Commission had the final consideration of this document.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Harris to
adopt by resolution the Standards for Retail Impact Studies with the one
correction noted and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution on behalf of
the Planning Commission.
Motion carried 5-3, with Burress,
Haase, Harris, Krebs, and Erickson voting in favor. Eichhorn, Finkeldei and
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
Haase referred to comments made by Kirk
McClure, Professor of Economics at KU, regarding the current stipulation in the
Standards that a new commercial development proposal “shall be denied” if there
is a City-wide commercial vacancy rate of 8% or greater. Prof. McClure suggested this language be
revised to “may be denied,” and supplied supporting text explaining the intent
of this language. Haase indicated his
support for initiating a text amendment of this nature.
It was discussed that Staff would develop
revised language for the amendment and bring it to the Commission for
consideration and public comment. Staff noted
that the Planning Commission may wish to send a memo to the City Commission,
stating their (the PC’s) intent to consider such a change. This might instigate a similar amendment
during the City Commission’s consideration of the relevant section(s) of the
Development Code.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Harris to
direct Staff to:
·
Develop language for a proposed text amendment to the Standards for
Retail Impact Studies including revised language and the preamble submitted by
Prof. McClure.
·
Forward to the City Commission a memo stating the Planning Commission’s
intent to initiate said text amendment and a suggestion that a similar
amendment be considered for the Development Code.
Motion carried
unanimously, 8-0.
The
Commission moved at this point to Item 6.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MEETING
June 26 & 28, 2006
Meeting Minutes - DRAFT
__________________________________________________________________
Reconvene
Commissioners present: Burress, Harris, Haase, Finkeldei, Krebs,
Eichhorn, Erickson and
Staff present: Stogsdill, A. Miller, Patterson, Day, and M.
Miller
__________________________________________________________________
COMMUNICATIONS
Miscellaneous
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS /
DEFERRAL REQUESTS
The Commission considered Item 5 at this time.
Swearing in of witnesses
PC Minutes
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 PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced
the item, a final plat to allow a three-lot residential subdivision. He explained that plats are typically
non-public hearing items and was published as such on the May 2006 agenda. However, the Commission deferred the item and
directed Staff to re-publish the hearing to accept public comment.
Mr. Patterson gave an
overview of the plat, including lot layout, proposed structures, the drainage
retention basin, utility placement and the Burroughs Creek running through the
subject property. Staff commented that
the plat created somewhat odd-shaped lots for residential development.
It was established that
the plat proposed
Staff noted that the City
had filed for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) to narrow the FEMA-designated
floodplain area in the subject property, based on drainage improvements made
with the channelization of Burroughs Creek.
Staff recommended approval
of the plat, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Richard Hemphill spoke on
behalf of his mother, the applicant. He
explained the use history of the land, noting that the majority of the property
had been unbuildable for several years due to floodplain designations. With the Burroughs Creek drainage
improvements, enough of the property would be removed from the floodplain (with
the submitted LOMA) to make subdivision possible.
Mr. Hemphill made several
comments:
It was noted that the
proposed drive to
It was discussed that the
applicant would like to retain the existing
Burress expressed concern
about upkeep of the triangle of land proposed as part of
PUBLIC HEARING
James Graeurholtz spoke as
the Trustee of the William S. Burroughs Trust, which held ownership of the existing
house on the land shown in this plat as
Mr. Graeurholtz said he
understood his concerns were not directly relevant to tonight’s review, but he
wished to get them on the record at this stage in the development process.
Mr. Graeurholtz suggested area residents were opposed to the proposal because
they did not want the area to develop with more duplexes similar to what they
had been looking at for several years.
The existing duplexes were too close to the road and provided inadequate
parking. He personally was relieved to
hear the proposal was for single-family homes.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Sincerely believe
neighbors will be satisfied with this development
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Patterson showed the
environs boundary for the Burroughs House, noting that the Historic Resources
Commission would also review this project for compliance with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for massing, size, and other design elements.
It was pointed out that
the topography of the lot made access design challenging. Staff did not support removal of the existing
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
There was additional
discussion about access design, noting that removal of the
Eichhorn spoke about the
long, narrow lots that characterized the rest of the area. He said he generally supported in-fill
development, but he was concerned that the applicant had developed their
property surrounding this application “with no consideration of the existing
character”, creating a situation where they had no choice in this case for
development design.
There was discussion about
adding a condition for turn-around elements for the new drives, with Burress
speaking about the high dollar value of incremental increases to road hazards
that may result in another problem are alike
It was clarified that a
turn-around element did not have to be full circle drive.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Burress,
seconded by Erickson to approve the Final Plat for Elsie Hemphill Subdivision
and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and
rights-of-way, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff
Report and subject to the following revised conditions:
Motion carried 7-1, with
Burress, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harris,
PC Minutes
ITEM NO. 7: USE PERMITTED
UPON
UPR-04-06-06: Use Permitted upon Review request for a 150’
monopole cellular tower and equipment shelter, located at
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the
item, a request for a UPR to allow the erection of a cell tower monopole on
south side of the Kansas Turnpike entrance.
The Commission had seen a request for the same tower in a different
location previously in 2006, but the applicant had worked with Staff to find an
alternate location. In Staff’s opinion
the new location was preferable, since it was further from the historic
property and residential areas near the originally proposed location.
Ms. Day explained that
the subject property was currently zoned RS-1 and did not have separate
property description from the larger parcel of right-of-way. Staff had worked with KTA to establish a
notification boundary.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Bob Herlihy spoke on
behalf of the applicant, asking to correct information from the original
application. The application requested a
tower capable of accommodating four carriers – this was being amended to 3
carriers. Also, the new tower would not
include a shelter at this time, but this may be a requested additional element
in the future. It was verified that a
new notice was not needed to consider these changes.
Mr. Herlihy noted that
the new location was surrounded by large commercial and industrial uses, and
well-hidden by existing vegetation. He
said there were no co-location options within a mile of the proposed site.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public
spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
There was discussion
about a possible Code amendment to make all telecommunication towers
Administrative Review issues. Ms. Stogsdill suggested the community, both
urban and rural, would not support a blanket amendment that allowing no public
hearing for towers of any height and design in any zoning district. Staff agreed to schedule a future mid-month
study session on this topic.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn,
seconded by
1.
Execution of a site plan performance agreement; and
2.
Provision of a revised site plan to correct the street name from “
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
Motioned by Burress,
seconded by Harris to direct Staff to develop a recommendation for a text
amendment making some telecommunication towers Administrative Review items.
Motion carried 7-0-1, with Eichhorn absent at the time of
the vote.
PC Minutes
ITEM NO. 8: REVISED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR
PDP-01-02-06: Revised Preliminary Development
Plan for
Item 8 was deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes
ITEM NO. 9: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR
BLUEJACKET CROSSING VINEYARD TASTING ROOM; 1969 N 1250 ROAD (MKM)
CUP-05-04-06: Conditional Use Permit request for a Tasting Room
to host events. The property is generally described as being located at 1969 N
1250 Road and contains 20 acres.
Submitted by G.E. Solberg, property owner of record. (Deferred to
November PC per applicant’s request).
Item 9 was
deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes
ITEM NO. 10A : A TO A-1; 40 ACRES; EAST
SIDE OF E 1800 ROAD BETWEEN N 1000 AND N 1100 ROADS (PGP)
Z-05-11-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately
40 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Residential)
District. The property is generally
described as being located on the east side of E 1800 Road between N 1000 and N
1100 Roads. Submitted by Dallas
Livengood, applicant, for Victoria & Clifford Pagles, property owners of
record.
PC Minutes
ITEM NO. 10B : PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
LIVENGOOD ESTATES SUBDIVISION; EAST SIDE OF E 1800 ROAD BETWEEN N 1000 AND 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. (Deferred
from May PC meeting).
Items 10A
& 10 B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF
PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the items, a rezoning and
preliminary plat to accommodate a residential subdivision with four
single-family lots on just under 41 acres, each lot having access to E 1800
Road. It was verified that E 1800 Road
was a gravel road.
Staff recommended approval of both items, subject
to conditions listed in the Staff Report to ensure the development would
readily assimilate into the City when the area was annexed.
It was noted that the applicant, Dallas Livengood,
was now the property owner.
APPLICANT
PRESENTATION
Dallas Livingood, applicant, explained his intent
to divide the subject property into 4 equal lots. All four lots were proposed for single-family
residential development, but only two of the lots would be developed right
away. The remaining two lots would not
be developed for 2-3 years.
There was discussion about the amount of existing
vegetation that would be cleared provide building space for the proposed
houses. There was also discussion about
the location of this property in Service Area 4 and the Code intent for rural
development to occur in the service areas first. Ms. Stogsdill said the Code directed rural
growth to the service areas, discouraging leapfrog development and the
extension of services ahead of their logical progression.
It was discussed that the applicant did not intend
to further subdivide the property, this was a possibility. According to the current County zoning
regulations, the property had adequate road frontage to create additional
conforming lots. The new County
regulations would possibly increase the required road frontage to preclude further
lot splitting.
PUBLIC
HEARING – Item 10A only
Jim Sack, area resident and rural business owner, said he
supported development in the area but he wanted to state for the record that
the property lines established by a recent land survey did not coincide with
fencing that had been in place for many years.
He believed the survey shorted his propery line by about 7 feet in some
places.
It was verified with Staff that the City did not
have a surveying team and did not typically become involved in disputes of this
nature. The Commission encouraged both
the applicant and Ms. Sack to seek a legal opinion on the matter.
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
Burress expressed concern that, by approving the
plat, they were codifying the property lines according to the survey. Staff said the Commission’s action was
relevant to the legal description (meets and bounds) set on the land deed, so
it would not impact a potential civil case over the boundary lines. Finkeldei agreed with this assessment, based
on his experience with similar situations.
Burress confirmed with other Commissioners that
the Rural Development Guidelines proposed earlier by the Rural Development
Subcommittee (denied by the
There was discussion about the proposed shared
access, noting that this was encouraged in the County regulations and
appropriately designed here to avoid the issue of private roads.
Mr. Patterson referenced the recommended condition
requiring a transitional or “ghost” plat be submitted with the final plat. Some Commissioners felt this timing was
incorrect, and the ghost plat should be considered with the preliminary plat. It was suggested that it would not be a
significant detriment to the applicant to defer the preliminary plat to allow
submittal of a ghost plat, provided the Commission agreed to consider the
preliminary and final plats concurrently.
Concern was expressed that the Commission may end up denying the project
after the applicant went to this additional effort. It was noted that the new version of the
Rural Development Guidelines (still being considered by the governing body)
would allow Administrative Review for development of up to 8 homes on this
property, but would still require a ghost plat.
There was discussion about what existing
regulations gave the Commission the ability to require a ghost plat at this
stage. It was established that ghost
plats had been required for other rural development proposals, but were
typically required with the preliminary plat.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 10A
Motioned by Finkeldei, seconded by
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Erickson to allow
a substitute motion, deferring Item 10A to the July meeting.
DISCUSSION
ON THE MOTION
Staff responded to questioning that July might be
enough time to bring back the requested information, depending on how quickly
the applicant could develop a ghost plat and how much Staff/departmental review
the new information required.
Burress said the intent behind deferral was to
allow consideration of the ghost plat along with the preliminary plat. Finkeldei said he had not heard any concerns
expressed about the proposed zoning density or use. Burress said he wanted to
defer the rezoning as well as the plat because granting the privilege of zoning
paved the way toward approving the right to plat.
ACTIONS
TAKEN
Item 10A
Motion on the floor was to allow a substitute
motion to defer Item 10A to the July 2006 meeting.
Motion failed 3-5, with Burress, Erickson and Haase voting
in favor. Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harris,
Motion on the floor was to approve the rezoning of
40 acres from A to A-1 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:
1.
Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning
resolution.
Motion carried 6-2, with Burress, Finkeldei, Erickson,
Harris,
Item 10B
Motioned by Finkeldei, seconded by
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Haase to allow a
substitute motion deferring Item 10B to the July 2006 meeting.
Motion carried 5-3, with Burress, Erickson, Haase, Harris
and Krebs voting in favor. Eichhorn,
Finkeldei and
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
It was established that the regulatory language
did not preclude allowing concurrent submission of the preliminary and final
plat in this case. It was discussed
that, if the ghost plat was not prepared and adequately reviewed by Staff in
time for the July meeting, the applicant would need to request deferral to
August. It was also clarified that the
applicant was not required to submit concurrently; this action only gave the
applicant that ability.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Harris to permit
concurrent submission of the preliminary and final plats for Livengood Estates
Subdivision at the July 2006 meeting, subject to the following condition:
Motion carried unanimously,
8-0.
10 minute recess
Reconvene at
PC Minutes
ITEM NO. 11A : RS-2 TO PRD-1; 3.04 ACRES;
Z-05-12-06: A request to rezone a tract of land
approximately 3.04 acres from RS-2 (Single Family Residential) District to
PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development) District. This property is generally described as being
located at
PC Minutes
ITEM NO. 11B : PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR PRAIRIE WIND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES;
PDP-05-04-06: Preliminary Development Plan for Prairie Wind
Single Family Homes. This proposed planned residential development contains approximately
3.04 acres and proposes 17 single-family detached homes. The property is generally described as being
located at
Items 11A
& 11B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF
PRESENTATION
Ms. Miller introduced the items, a rezoning and
preliminary development plan to accommodate a residential development with 17
single-family homes. She noted that the
Lesser Change table was applied to a previous RM-D rezoning request to approve RS-2
zoning, which was deemed to be more compatible with the surrounding area. Tonight’s request was for PRD-1 zoning with a
net density of 6.651 dwelling units per acre - slightly higher than the density
allowed by RS-2 (6.22 dupa).
Staff recommended a condition restricting
development to single-family detached homes, recognizing continued neighborhood
concerns about traffic, building type and density. Staff also recommended conditioning the submittal
(with the final development plan) of a tree conservation plan to retain as many
existing mature trees as possible.
Ms. Miller explained that the common open space
areas on the north and south access drives would need to be relocated to a more
suitable location.
Three waivers would be needed to allow the
proposed development:
Staff showed pictures representing the overall
character of the neighborhood. Ms.
Miller explained that the residents of this development would own their house
and the land below it, but the Homeowners Association would hold all
surrounding land beginning immediately outside the building footprint.
Two communications were referenced, the first a
letter of opposition from the League of Women Voters voicing concerns about a
PUD application being submitted “between codes”. The League asked that the review be conducted
according to the current (old) code. The
letter also outlined some concerns about open space that would presumably be
addressed with plan revisions.
The second communication was a petition signed by
over 60 area residents that asked that the existing RS-2 zoning for the subject
area be retained.
Ms. Miller said City’s Stormwater Engineer had
reviewed the plan and the drainage study, returning an opinion that the
development’s drainage elements had adequate stormwater capacity. Conditions were recommended stating that
stormwater runoff must be directed to the street, not onto neighboring
properties and the drainage area better defined along the South and East
property borders.
Other elements were discussed:
Staff recommended approval of both items, subject
to conditions listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT
PRESENTATION
Alan Belot was present to speak on behalf of the
applicant, but asked to reserve his comments until after the public hearing.
It was clarified with the applicant that with RS-2
zoning the net density, after considering right-of-way and easements, would
allow about 3-4 homes to be built on this subject property. Planned unit developments allowed more
flexibility and would allow a higher net density as proposed here.
PUBLIC
HEARING
Debbie Brown, referenced the letter sent to her by the
applicant that said the development would be similar to
Ms. Brown said area realtors had told her the
highest residential demand at the moment was for homes with family yards. She said this kind of property was hard to
find as developers tried to maximize their profits by building smaller homes
with smaller yards.
Ms. Brown asked who would pay the taxes and
insurance for the lot area controlled by the Homeowner’s Association.
Ms. Schenze, 2512 Alison, stated support for RS-2 zoning,
saying the neighborhood was developed with single-family homes and they liked
it that way. She cited concerns about
emergency access, close-set housing, and child safety, asking the Commission to
“please keep my interests at heart.” Hands were raised to show support for the
speaker’s comments.
Michelle Rutlegde,
Ms. Rutledge asked how this development would
address the issue of pedestrian access and dual sidewalks, which were a high
priority in the new code.
Mike Ott,
Marcella Krones,
Brad Brown,
Carmen Marsico, 2528 Allison, said the detention pond
shown on the plan would not adequately handle the area’s flooding
conditions. He asked how high the water
would get before it began to disperse and suggested a fence around the pond for
child safety.
Dorien Whitte,
APPLICANT
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Belot presented the letter sent by the
applicant to adjacent property owners and to any member of the public who spoke
at the public hearing in November 2005.
This letter invited discussion and asked people to contact the applicant
with questions and concerns. Mr. Belot
said it was unfortunate that no one had responded to this invitation, since
many of the public’s questions could have been answered before this meeting. He explained he had intentionally limited comparison
to other developments to those he had been involved with.
Mr. Belot addressed several issues raised by the
public:
Mr. Belot provided information about how the
detention pond and drainage area would be designed and graded to meet drainage
requirements and potentially improve flooding conditions in the area.
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
There was discussion about how many homes could be
built on the site with RS-2 zoning, regardless of financial feasibility. Mr. Belot responded to questioning that the
price point of the proposed homes would be about $158,000, similar to homes
that were selling at 15th & Haskell.
Mr. Belot responded to Commission questions:
Eichhorn said neighborhood character was, in his
opinion, the most important factor for the Commission to consider. He said he generally supported infill
development, but he understood the neighbor’s concerns about what the
development would look like and how it would fit in the area. He said he would support keeping lot sizes
based on RS-2 zoning, but pointed out that meant the applicant would not be
able to improve existing flood conditions as now proposed.
Finkeldei noted that the directly adjacent
residential areas were RS-1 and RS-2, but the surrounding neighborhood had a
wider range of densities and character.
Higher densities similar to the proposal existed not far away from the
subject area.
Mr. Belot responded to questioning that a fence
could be built, but he asked if it could be conditioned for construction at the
end of the project so it would not have to be torn up and relocated depending
on utility placement.
Burress referenced the idea that land could become
unusable if it were restricted to a density so low it became financially
unfeasible to develop based on the land purchase price. He said eventually “this land will become
very cheap and then something can be built there.”
Burress expressed concern that the proposed
fencing would encourage separation of the subject area from the overall
neighborhood, which was against one intent of infill development.
Krebs spoke about the Commission’s tendency to
encourage more compact infill development to curb rural spread.
Haase referenced the Clinton Park Patio Homes
development, saying it was a vibrant example of the proposed housing model that
met many of the goals the community was seeking. He understood the neighborhood’s concerns,
but felt these were adequately addressed by the applicant. He added that drainage was a big concern in
this area and would be improved by this development.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 11A
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Haase to approve
the rezoning of approximately 3.04 acres from RS-2 to PRD-1 at
Motion carried 7-1, with
Burress, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harris,
Item 11B
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Haase to approve
the Preliminary Development Plan for Prairie Wind Single Family Homes, 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:
1.
Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to:
a.
include a statement as to the substance of the covenants pertaining to
the maintenance of common areas and grants of easements or other restrictions
to be imposed upon the use of the land; buildings and structures, including
proposed easements or grants for public utilities;
b.
provide a note that occupancy will occur after the project is
completed, or if the homes are to be occupied as they are completed that all
public improvements and site improvements must be complete before occupancy may
occur;
c.
list the measures to be used during construction for protection of
existing trees;
d.
revise General Note No. 10 on the plan to include ‘maintenance of
common drives’ as a responsibility of the Homeowner’s Association;
e.
relocate the common open space from the access way to an acceptable
location in the interior of the site; revise the amount of common open space in
the General Site Summary, if necessary.
f.
show the required ‘
g.
designate responsibility for regulating playtime for the basketball
court in the northwest corner and other common play areas with the Neighborhood
Association and covenants.
h.
show the right-of-way dimension for
i.
show dimensions of individual easements separately; remove any
references to combined right-of-way and utility easement.
j.
note that the uses in this PRD are restricted to single-family detached
units.
k.
note that the existing water well will be plugged to Kansas Standards;
l.
provide correct legal description by replacing reference to 88 deg,
with 89 deg;
m.
remove utility easement from detention basin;
n.
correct the reference in the Landscaping section to read ‘Master Street
Tree Plan that will be filed with the Final Plat, rather than ‘has been
filed’;
o.
provide a fence along the perimeter of the property, with a note that
it is to be built at the final phase of construction; and
p.
provide sidewalks along both sides of
2. Approval of the
preserved tree list and protection measures to be employed during construction
by the City Landscaping Supervisor; and
3. Revisions to the grading plan, submitted and
approved by City Stormwater Engineer, to:
a.
define the drainage area along the south edge of the property so it
flows into the area inlet.
b.
define the drainage along the east edge of property so it flows into
the detention area; and
c.
overflow from the detention area must flow into the street and not
directly into the backyard of the property to the east of the detention area.
Motion carried 6-2, with
Burress, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase,
PC Minutes
ITEM NO. 12: A TO B-2; 6.18 ACRES; E
900 ROAD, NORTH OF LOT 1
Z-05-10-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately
6.18 acres from A (Agricultural) District to B-2 (General Business)
District. The property is generally
described as being located on E 900 Road, north of Lot 1 Clinton Cove #2. Submitted by Robert D. Voth, applicant, for
Windover Community of Lawrence, LLC, property owner of record.
Item 12 was
deferred prior to the meeting.
MISC. ITEM NO.
2 NEW BUSINESS
Motioned by Finkeldei, seconded Harris to initiate
a review of the Planning Commission By-laws, specifically proposed revisions to
the text regarding ex parte communications, for the July 2006 meeting.
Motion
carried unanimously, 8-0.
There was discussion about reassigning committee
members. Finkeldei replaced Eichhorn on
the CPC, and Eichhorn was assigned to the Development Review Process Comittee. It was noted that some appointments were
still vacant.
GENERAL PUBLIC
COMMENT
Stan Hernly, Hernly Architects, spoke about Item
12 on tonight’s agenda, which was deferred at the applicant’s request. He asked to present the Commission with
information on the request to allow additional review time before the item
returned in July.
It was noted that this property was reviewed in
2005, but this was a significantly different proposal for commercial rezoning
of a small section of the overall property.
ADJOURN –