PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 23 & 25, 2006
Meeting Minutes
________________________________________________________________________
October 23, 2006 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Harkins, Harris, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson, and Finkeldei
Staff present: Stogsdill, Day, Leininger, M. Miller, Pool, Rexwinkle and Brown
________________________________________________________________________
MINUTES
Discussion regarding August 21, 23 & 30, 2006 draft minutes -
Suggestions from Commissioners Burress, Haase, Harris and Lawson regarding the August minutes were emailed to Sheila Stogsdill prior to the October Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Haase felt that the August minutes needed additional detail and that this would be essential in providing a clear record for City Commission. He did not feel comfortable gluing the minutes back together, but rather giving his opinion of what was discussed. He feels the memo that he wrote was a more accurate reflection of the Wal-Mart item that was discussed in August.
Commissioner Krebs stated she would like for Commissioner Haase’s suggestions to be added into the August minutes.
Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Lawson to amend the August minutes to include Commissioner Haase’s memo as an appendix.
Commissioner Harkins had questions about the procedural process about adding Commissioner Haase’s comments to the minutes without discussion. He asked staff if there was a recording of the August minutes that could be referred to.
Ms. Stogsdill responded that there was a recording but that the minutes are a summary, not verbatim.
Commissioner Harkins said he was not questioning the summary of the minutes, but just did not want Haase’s comments added. He wanted to vote against the motion because he felt it was not appropriate.
Commissioner Burress agreed with Commissioner Harkins but motioned to approve the minute changes and add Commissioner Haase’s comments as an appendix or memo.
Commissioner Lawson felt that Commissioner Haase’s memo was just one commissioners representation of the conversation regarding Wal-Mart.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that #3 & #4 from Commissioner Haase’s memo were comments on what happened that night but they were not minutes.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that Commissioner Haase could give the City Commission the additional information.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that Commissioner Haase’s comments may be editorial but no more then what are in minutes.
Commissioner Harkins said that this was a 5-5 vote and that this memo would be submitting a report that only tells half the story.
Commissioner Krebs stated that it would be clear in the minutes that Commissioners Haase’s email was his opinion of the points that were made.
Commissioner Haase said the alternative would be to extend the minutes more correctly. He would like to properly input what he felt was said and discussed. He went on to say that the Commissioners were asked to review the minutes for accuracy and he did not believe it to be accurate info.
Commissioner Burress said that when he went through the minutes he did not see his views but thought it would be hopeless in trying to change it. He reiterated that it was Commissioner Haase’s opinion on what happened and that they would only be voting on that.
Commissioner Finkeldei pointed out that if the Commission did that for this meeting that they could do it for every meeting and that there is a difference of a summary of what happened in the meeting. He would feel more comfortable passing a resolution to send Commissioner Haase’s comments to City Commission as an accurate summary as to what Commissioner Haase thought happened.
Commissioner Burress questioned if it was okay to put a memo in the August minutes but not other months?
Commissioner Haase said that adding written clarification is not setting a precedent and that it was done several months ago.
Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Lawson to approve the minutes of the August 21, 23 & 30, 2006 meetings with revisions and memo from Commission Haase as an appendix.
Motion carried 6-4, with Commissioners Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Harris and Krebs voting in favor. Commissioners Finkeldei, Harkins, Jennings and Lawson voting in opposition.
Discussion regarding September 25 & 27, 2006 draft minutes -
Commissioner Burress wanted to clarify his comments in the September minutes regarding the T20230 Future Land Use Map discussion. He was not asking for the September minutes to be changed, but just wanted it noted in the October what he meant. He noticed a discussion in the September minutes where there was a misunderstanding between himself and Commissioner Harkins over the phrase top-down. Commissioner Burress stated that top-down had two almost opposite meanings and he was using one of them while Commissioner Harkins was using the other but that he basically agreed with Commissioner Harkins and was not in disagreement. Commissioner Burress said that Commissioner Harkins misunderstood him to be saying some expert makes a design and then force it upon everybody as opposed to adding a lot of discussion. Commission Burress agreed that this was bad and not what he meant. He was using the top down design in a sense that comes out of computer programming and consistent with good planning processes. He explained that the first thing is to have a general plan at the top and then a more detailed code to implement that plan and then more details yet to implement things. Work from the top to the bottom.
Commissioner Harkins discussed pages 25, 26 and 27 references to public input and value of a timeline.
Commissioners Krebs and Harkins agreed that on page 27 the summary was a little lacking in information.
Commissioner Harris suggested a small change on page 6 of the September minutes in the paragraph regarding the sidewalk “new neighbors” to “passerbys.”
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei to approve the minutes of the September 25 & 27, 2006 meeting with discussed revisions.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner Erickson discussed that the Community Design Committee chose a code consultant.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that the Development Committee discussed changes the City might make regarding using an existing software package or implementing a new one. He also said that a “one-stop-shop” department was discussed and that the edits will go to City Commission in October.
Rural Zoning Ordinances met and discussed the rural zoning ordinances. The committee hopes to break it up into six different group changes. The first thing that will be discussed will be Conditional Use Permits in the County.
Planning Commission Mid-Month discussed affordable housing and the waste water treatment plant.
COMMUNICATIONS
Miscellaneous
Item 7 – Revisions to Chapter 20, Development Code
Item 9 – CUP for Verizon Wireless
Item 10 – Rezoning; RS7 to RM12
· Letter in opposition, from Scott Grosdidier
Item 12 - T2030 Land Use Scenarios
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte
· No abstentions
· There were no deferral requests to consider
SWEARING IN OF SPEAKERS:
CONSENT AGENDA (OCTOBER 23, 2006) MEETING:
PC Minutes 10/23/06
ITEM NO. 1A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR JOYCE ADDITION; 912 NORTH IOWA STREET (JCR)
PP-08-13-06: Preliminary Plat for Joyce Addition. This proposed one lot industrial subdivision contains approximately .977 acres. The property is located at 912 North Iowa Street. Submitted by Grob Engineering Services, for John J. Joyce III, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Preliminary Plat for Joyce Addition based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
a. Revise Note #6 to be consistent with what is shown on plat, the existing structures have been razed; and
b. Update Note #8 to the current zoning classification, IG (General Industrial) as designated under the new Development Code.
Motion
carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
ITEM NO. 1B: FINAL PLAT FOR JOYCE ADDITION; 912 NORTH IOWA STREET (JCR)
PF-08-20-06: Final Plat for Joyce Addition. This proposed one lot industrial subdivision contains approximately .977 acres. The property is located at 912 North Iowa Street. Submitted by Grob Engineering Services, for John J. Joyce III, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Final Plat for Joyce Addition and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and right-of-way, 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 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 Temporary Utility Agreement
Motion
carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
ITEM NO. 2A: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HANSCOM-TAPPAN III; 1511 HASKELL AVENUE (SLD)
FDP-09-06-06: Final Development Plan for Hanscom-Tappan III. The plan proposes six single-family homes on approximately one acre. The property is located on the NW corner of the intersection of Haskell Avenue and Anna Tappan Way. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Grand Builders, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Final Development Plan for Hanscom-Tappan III 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 documentation:
a. A Site Plan Performance Agreement.
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
c. Recordation at the Register of Deeds’ Office of an updated copy of the covenants governing maintenance of all common space, with the Book and Page number noted on the plan and a copy of the document provided to the Planning Office.
2. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to:
a. Show detectable warnings on sidewalks.
b. Show street trees along Haskell Avenue.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
ITEM NO. 2B: FINAL PLAT FOR ELAINE MARGARET ADDITION; NW CORNER OF HASKELL AVENUE AND ANNA TAPPEN WAY (SLD)
PF-09-24-06: Final Plat for Elaine Margaret Addition. The proposed six lot residential subdivision containing approximately one acre. The property is located on the NW corner of the intersection of Haskell Avenue and Anna Tappen Way. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Grand Builders, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Final Plat for Hanscom-Tappan III and forward it to 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 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. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of street, intersection, signal, and geometric improvements for 15th Street and Haskell Avenue.
3. Submittal of public improvement plans for the extension of sidewalks along Haskell Avenue.
Motion
carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
ITEM NO. 3: ADOPTION OF CPA-2005-05 (MJL)
PC Resolution 2006-03: Authorize Chair/Vice-Chair to sign resolution regarding CPA-2005-05.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the adoption of CPA-2005-05.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
REGULAR AGENDA (OCTOBER 23, 2006) MEETING:
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
SWEARING IN OF SPEAKERS:
Convene Joint Meeting
No members of the Eudora Planning Commission were present.
ITEM NO. 4A: A & VC TO A-1; 10 ACRES; 1273 E. 1900 ROAD (LAP)
Z-08-23-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 10 acres, from A (Agricultural) and VC (Valley Channel) to A-1 (Suburban Home Residential District). The property is located at 1273 E. 1900 Road. Submitted by David C. and Pamela W. Morrison, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the September Planning Commission meeting. This is a joint meeting with Eudora Planning Commission.
Items 4A and 4B were heard together.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Lisa Pool introduced item 4A, a rezoning request for Wakarusa Farm Estates. She outlined the general details of the proposal to rezone an approximately 10-acre parcel for the sale of an existing single-family residence and outbuildings.
Staff recommended approval of rezoning approximately 10 acres from the A and VC Districts to the A-1 District and forwarding it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning resolution.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the rezoning 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 condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning resolution.
Motion carried unanimously,
10-0.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
No members of the Eudora Planning Commission were present.
ITEM NO. 4B: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WAKARUSA FARM ESTATES; 1273 E. 1900 ROAD (LAP)
PP-08-12-06: Preliminary Plat request for Wakarusa Farm Estates, located at 1273 E. 1900 Road. The proposed one lot residential subdivision containing approximately 9 acres. Submitted by David C. and Pamela W. Morrison, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the September Planning Commission meeting. This is a joint meeting with Eudora Planning Commission.
Items 4A and 4B were heard together.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Lisa Pool introduced item 4B, a preliminary plat request for Wakarusa Farm Estates. She outlined the general details of the proposal to plat an approximately 9-acre parcel for the sale of an existing single-family residence and outbuildings.
Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat for Wakarusa Farm Estates, subject to the following conditions:
1. Filing of the off-site access easement at the Register of Deed’s Office.
2. Revision of the plat to include the following:
a) Notation designating the FEMA 100-year floodplain areas as a “no build zone”.
b) Notation of the Special Flood Hazard area and Floodway area within Zone AE on the subject lot.
c) Notation stating that the construction of the shared entrance along the subject property’s southern property line is to be triggered by the submittal of a plat for the parcel of property to the south of the subject lot or redevelopment of the subject lot. With the construction of the shared entrance, the existing driveway on the subject lot is to be removed.
d) Removal of General Note #17.
e) Removal of the note “John Gage” for the property to the northwest of the subject lot.
f) Notation of the names of adjacent property owners.
g) Notation of the zoning for adjacent properties.
h) Notation stating that all existing buildings meet the setback requirements for the A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) District.
i) Notation stating that all existing buildings are to remain with the platting of this property.
j) Revision of General Note #4 to reflect the existence of the site’s single-family residence and outbuildings.
k) Addition of a 10-foot wide utility easement along the front property line.
l) Addition of the Book and Page number for the off-site access easement.
3. Revision of the conceptual plan to include the following:
a) Removal of the center drive and the addition of a shared driveway with the property to the south.
b) Notation of 75 feet of right-of-way for the western half of E 1900 Road.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
David Morrison, property owner, described how he moved here 3 years ago and purchased 10 acres south of this area. He purchased the property from the Gage family. Mr. Morrison stated that he purchased about 160 acres from Mr. Gage, but now wants to sell the existing second home on the property because he does not need two homes. He would rather sell the extra house with 10 acres rather than rent it out.
Commissioner Haase asked Mr. Gage if he was concerned with any of the Plat conditions.
Mr. Morrison replied that to his knowledge he doesn’t see any problems.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked about the 3-acre property to the North that was platted and rezoned six months ago and who did it.
Mr. Morrison stated that David Gage sold it to John Thomas, who then sold it to his sister, Sara Thomas. Sara Thomas is also planning on purchasing the subject property.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Applicant had no closing comments.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress inquired about item 4A including 10 acres and 4B including 9 acres.
Ms. Stogsdill replied that the rezoning is to the center of E 1900 Road and the plat does not include the road right-of-way.
Commissioner Lawson asked if shared driveways were still a viable approach.
Ms. Stogsdill advised that shared access within the right-of-way is still permitted, but the driveways must split once they are on private property.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Jennings to approve the Preliminary Plat for Wakarusa Farm Estates, subject to the conditions stated above from the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Recess joint meeting with Eudora Planning Commission
PC Minutes 10/23/06
RESUME PUBLIC HEARING
Convene joint meeting with Lecompton Planning Commission
ITEM NO. 5: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FRED’S BOAT STORAGE; 568 N 1800 ROAD (MKM)
CUP-08-07-06: Conditional Use Permit for Fred’s Boat Storage. The plan proposes construction of a 60’ x 120’ building to expand existing boat storage. The property is located at 568 N 1800 Road. Submitted by George F. Roll, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mary Miller provided a review of the original approval and the new proposed expansion. She stated that staff did not receive any negative or positive comments from neighbors.
Staff recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an additional building to expand existing boat storage and forwarding of it to the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report, and subject to the following conditions:
1) Provision of a revised site plan to include the following changes:
a. Note added that states “All Boat Storage must be stored entirely inside the buildings.”
b. Note added that states “No non-agricultural storage is permitted outside the buildings.”
c. Note added that states “This Conditional Use Permit replaces the previous permit [CUP-10-11-02] and will be re-evaluated by the County Commission in 5 years from the approval date and will expire in 10 years from the approval date. Continuation of the use beyond that date will require rezoning or approval of a new CUP.”
d. Screening must be provided for the proposed building from the adjacent public road per Section 19-4(23) of the County Zoning Regulation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Fred Roll stated that he has had many requests from people wanting to store their boats at his boat storage facility and that he would need to build an additional building to support this growth.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Roll if in 2003 when he first requested approved of this did he only ask for one storage building.
Mr. Roll replied that yes, he just asked for one at that time.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Roll what kind of screening he would prefer doing.
Mr. Roll stated that he plans to take the dirt that is removed from the project site and build a berm.
Commissioner Burress asked which lake people use the boats at.
Mr. Roll replied that the boats are mostly used at Perry Lake and Clinton Lake.
Commissioner Harkins stated that the original building roof was turned into a sign board and asked Roll if he had any intention to use the new roof as a sign board.
Mr. Roll replied that no, he did not have any intention of painting a sign on the proposed new roof.
Commissioner Harkins stated that the Commission should not require expensive screening but that he is concerned about a sign being on the roof.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that because it is a Conditional Use Permit the Commission has the authority to restrict a sign being on the roof.
Commissioner Harkins asked Roll if he had any objections to the restriction.
Mr. Roll responded that he did not have any objections to the restriction.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
LECOMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION
Lecompton Planning Commission Chair, Jennifer Smith and Vice Chair, Jeff Robertson were present.
Lecompton Planning Commissioner Jennifer Smith stated that the Lecompton Planning Commission did not have any problems with the Conditional Use Permit request.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Smith how she felt about the signage issue and if it was a concern.
Ms. Smith replied that she could not speak on behalf of the Lecompton Planning Commission, but that personally she would recommend the condition be added to not allow signage on the roof.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Roll stated that it was his understanding that the previous land owner had been paid by the City of Lecompton to paint a sign on one of the existing boat storage structures. He stated that if the City of Lecompton offered him a large sum of money to do the same to his new boat storage roof that he might listen to what they had to say.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Conditional Use Permit 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 as discussed:
1. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following changes:
a. Note added that states “All Boat Storage must be stored entirely inside the buildings.”
b. Note added that states “No non-agricultural storage is permitted outside the buildings.”
c. Note added that states “This Conditional Use Permit replaces the previous permit [CUP-10-11-02] and will be re-evaluated by the County Commission in 5 years from the approval date and will expire in 10 years from the approval date. Continuation of the use beyond that date will require rezoning or approval of a new CUP.”
d. Screening must be provided for the proposed building from the adjacent public road per Section 19-4(23) of the County Zoning Regulation.
2. Provide a note that states “No sign(s) will be painted or mounted on the roof of the new boat storage structure.”
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Recess joint meeting with Lecompton Planning Commission
Reconvene LDCMPC
PC Minutes 10/23/06
ITEM NO. 6: AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 3 & 5 OF THE COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS (SMS)
TA-08-07-06: Amendments to Articles 3 & 5 of the County Zoning Regulations regarding the definition of lot width and the establishment of setbacks along roads based upon road classification. [Revisions associated with proposed rural development regulations.] This item was deferred from the September Planning Commission meeting.
Item 6 was deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
ITEM NO. 7: REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-09-09-06: Consider amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct
inconsistencies since adopted. Initiated by the Planning Commission on 9/25/06.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Joe Rexwinkle introduced the text amendment. TA-09-09-06 represents specific amendments to various articles as outlined in the Staff Report. The revisions were initiated by the Planning Commission at the September 25th meeting.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-09-09-06] to Articles 2, 5 and 9 of the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” to the City Commission.
Commissioner Harris stated that she hadn’t had a chance to read the League of Women Voters letter yet and asked if Rexwinkle could summarize it.
Mr. Rexwinkle summarized the letter that states the proposed wording change indicates that a detached garage could be completely converted to an accessory dwelling, not as an addition to but as a substitute use for a garage.
Commissioner Harris asked if parking would be eliminated.
Mr. Rexwinkle stated that if the garage is eliminated then they would not be able to use that space for parking.
Commissioner Harris inquired if the 2 off street parking spaces that are allowed include accessory dwelling.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that if the accessory dwelling unit is built on a local street built to City standards then there is no additional street parking required. She went on to say that if you read the entire section there are additional design standards that seem to indicate that a new detached accessory dwelling unit could be constructed but an owner can not convert an existing garage. It does not seem logical that you could do one and not the other. They do not have to be attached to principal house. A detached dwelling could be the accessory dwelling.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if a dwelling unit being added would double the density and if it would be an issue.
Ms. Stogsdill said that accessory dwelling units are only allowed in the RS7 or larger districts and that they are not permitted in RS3 or RS5 districts. It does allow higher density.
Commissioner Harkins asked if this situation happens very often in the city.
Stogsdill stated that this is a new provision of the new code and that there is a process that outlines the registration before someone can have an accessory dwelling. One of the two units must be owner occupied.
Commissioner Harkins inquired if this would support elderly parents in the future.
Ms. Stogsdill stated there are many different options discussed to keep homeowners in the neighborhood. It could be an elderly parent or a nanny, for example.
Commissioner Eichhorn questioned if the 960 total square feet was the total or if that meant finished square feet.
Ms. Stogsdill said no more than 960 square feet but that it could defined as net or gross square feet.
PUBLIC HEARING
Betty Lichtwardt, member of the Zoning And Codes committee, stated that it was her suggestion to add the possibility of accessory dwelling to allow the elderly to stay in the home. She went on to say that it was a concept that was not accepted by the real estate people on the committee and that the idea was to be able to incorporate a portion of the house to add an accessory dwelling. The concept of a detached garage was adopted based on the idea for areas that are supporting public transit. The buildings are designed for single families but also detached garage with an accessory dwelling on top of the garage. The idea was to make living more affordable. Lichtwardt feels that it is an interpretation over and above what does not exist in the code and that staff interpretation expands the concept. (she showed the Commissioners diagrams of example houses)
Commissioner Harkins asks Lichtwardt about the diagram showing the whole network of residences designed with a unit behind.
Ms. Lichtwardt stated that this would allow an internal dwelling above the garage.
Commissioner Erickson asked if Lichtwardt felt the location above the garage would limit the elderly from living there.
Ms. Lichtwardt stated that the definition of accessory dwelling includes a portion of an existing house to be used as a dwelling. She does not want staff to extend the definition beyond what the code says.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if Lichtwardt interpreted the code (20-534(2)(iii)(c) to have 3 separate types.
Ms. Lichtwardt said yes, A, B and C and that there is not a detached dwelling in any of the 3.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Eichhorn said that he would also like to strike the attached garage. He thinks there are a few people in the community will think this is a step too far.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if that would require a different text amendment.
Ms. Stogsdill replied that it was for the Commission to discuss.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that he supported staff’s recommendation and thinks they are right in keeping with that idea.
Commissioner Burress posed the question of having new stand alone buildings popping up behind houses. He agreed with Lichtwardt and stated that every dwelling is either attached or detached. He also pointed out that codes would need to be written for specifications, such as how tall the dwelling could be.
Commissioner Krebs asked Burress about his opinion on the text amendment to convert an existing building and if there should be a stipulation about not building a second garage.
Commissioner Burress said that he did not think it should be allowed and that the language already allows for a garage.
Commissioner Krebs stated that there have been quite a few different interpretations of the language and that the Commission needs to discuss what they would want.
Commissioner Harkins said that he has seen hundreds of these buildings in other cities and that they are doing extremely well and that you can not tell there is a separate living area above the garage. He would be pleased if they could encourage that kind of construction in Lawrence and that the ones that are the most functional are the ones attached to the garage. He stated that they need to be extremely exact about the details because this type of thing should be done right or not done at all.
Commissioner Krebs stated that the Commission needed to come to a consensus as to what is appropriate. She recapped each issue that had been discussed thus far:
- Parking element of the garage should be retained
- Freestanding versus converted
- Can new space be constructed
Commissioner Haase said that the Commission should provide broad direction to staff and see what they can find in other cities so that the language can be well thought out. His recommendation was for staff to do more homework and report the findings to the Commission.
Ms. Stogsdill said that staff went by the language that has been drafted and that she would prefer the Commission give staff more direction. She went on to say that if the Commission does not want to see new detached accessory dwelling units then to tell staff that.
Commissioner Burress stated that he does not want freestanding detached accessory dwelling unit.
Commissioner Jennings said that older homes set on the lot where the driveway was meant to go back to the garage. In newer areas, one may not be able to do this because there would not be room for a freestanding unit.
Commissioner Eichhorn was concerned about possible abuse of the system by giving the example of Western Hills moving one house on a corner and building two more.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that he understood Commissioner Eichhorn’s concern but that they should allow detached dwelling units. He felt they should direct staff to look into design standards that tighten up standards for location of the unit.
Commissioner Harris pointed out that when a garage is taken away storage is also lost which may lead to more sheds being used for storage.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris to recommend approval of the amendment to Article 2 and defer the proposed amendment to Article 5 based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and discussion by the Planning Commission.
Motion
carried unanimously, 10-0.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
ITEM NO. 8: REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-10-10-06: Consider initiation of text amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Joe Rexwinkle introduced the text amendment. TA-10-10-06 represents specific amendments to various articles as outlined in the Staff Report.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission initiate the proposed revisions [TA-10-10-06] to the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” for public hearing at the November Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Haase asked staff if this was just an initiation.
Ms. Stogsdill responded that yes, this was just an initiation in case there were public comments.
Commissioner Haase inquired if the Commission would be voting to approve the text amendment.
Ms. Stogsdill informed the Commission that they would just be initiating the text amendment for future approval.
Commissioner Haase asked why the text amendment was a public hearing item.
Commissioner Krebs stated this is upon the idea of the text to be proposed and we’ve done it this way for months
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris to initiate text amendment TA-10-10-06 for future public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
_______________________________________________________________________
MISC. ITEM NO. 1: OLD BUSINESS
Adopt 2007 Planning Commission meeting schedule.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Planning Commission stands in recess at 8:30 p.m.
Recess until 6:30 P.M. on October 25, 2006
PC Minutes 10/25/06
_____________________________________________________________
October 25, 2006 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins, Harris, Jennings, Krebs and Lawson
Staff present: Stogsdill, Ahrens, Day, Leininger, J. Miller, Warner and Brown
_____________________________________________________________
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Stogsdill outlined the following communications:
Item 10:
RS7 to RM12; Deerfield Woods
Miscellaneous
· Extension letter for Langston Heights Final Plat.
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte
· Commissioner Lawson abstaining from Item 9
· There were no deferral requests to consider
SWEARING IN OF SPEAKERS:
REGULAR AGENDA:
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
PC Minutes 10/25/06
ITEM NO. 9: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR VERIZON WIRELESS; 1271 N 222 ROAD (SLD)
CUP-08-06-06: Conditional Use Permit for Verizon Wireless, for a 150’, 4 carrier monopole tower and equipment shelter. The property is located at 1271 N 222 Road. Submitted by Verizon Wireless LLC, for Ronald E. and Margaret E. Shouse, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the September Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Sandra Day introduced the Conditional Use Permit for Verizon Wireless. She described the area and noted that the subject property included an existing agricultural business – nursery sales. She identified Highway 59 and described improvements that would shift it to the east and that the private road 222 would also be realigned.
Staff recommended approval of CUP-08-06-06, a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a tower and placement of antenna and ground mounted equipment, and forwarding of it to the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised site plan to show the following:
a. Proposed landscape around the enclosure of the tower base per staff approval;
b. Dimensions of the tower from the south property line;
2. Confirmation of FAA approval to allow for proposed tower in proximity to private landing strip located at 1222 N 200 Road to the west;
3. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following notes per Section 19.4.31 (c ) (4 & 5))
a. “Any tower that is not in use for a period of three continuous years, or more, shall be removed by the owner at the owner's expense. Failure to remove the tower pursuant to non-use may result in removal and assessment of cost to the owner of the tower.”
b. “A sign shall be posted on the exterior of the fence around the base of the tower noting the name and telephone number of the tower owner and operator.”
c. “The tower owner/operator shall submit a letter to the Planning Office by July 1st of each year listing the current users and types of antenna located on the approved tower (Reference CUP-08-06-06 in the letter)”.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Curtis Holland, attorney speaking on behalf of applicant Verizon Wireless and the owners of the property. He stated that this site provides the ability to mount two different frequency antennas to service two licenses that Verizon has and provide continuous coverage through the southern area of Douglas County and further into Franklin County. He stated that it needs to be as close to the border in Douglas County as possible without encroaching on the signal from Franklin County. The location was important to be able to transition from the Douglas County system to the Franklin County system. He reviewed propagation maps with the Commission to show how the signal would be distributed along the corridor. There are no existing tower structures in the area but by building a new tower it will allow better coverage in the area. Mr. Holland said that most people are opposed to cell towers due to aesthetic reasons.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the proposed site is at the end of a private drive.
Ms. Day replied that yes, it is located on private property. She described access to the property from Highway 59 as a private road. From the property to the site it is a driveway.
Commissioner Burress asked if there was such a thing as a tower with internal antennas and would it be possible at this site.
Mr. Holland replied that yes, there is such a thing as an internal antenna but it is not an option at this site because internal antennas only cover a small distance and the area proposed is larger than what an internal antenna would cover. He went on to say that cell towers do not have the ability to have both internal antennas and external, it has to be one way or the other.
Commissioner Burress inquired if the area could be covered with two internal antennas.
Mr. Holland replied no, it would not be possible in order to cover the entire area with just two. He asked Commissioner Burress if he wanted to know if Verizon could put up two towers with internal antennas.
Commissioner Burress responded yes.
Mr. Holland stated that yes, it would be possible but that most people do not like looking at cell towers so if they could just put up one tower it would be better.
Commissioner Burress asked staff to explain the Commission’s authority to turn this project down.
Ms. Day stated that it would be based on the finding that the location would not be appropriate for a tower and that the property is not suitable.
Commissioner Burress asked if the Commission would then have to find an alternative site.
Ms. Day responded, not necessarily, but it would have to be found by the applicant to meet their objectives. If there was a particular area that the Commission would like to direct them to that would be helpful.
Mr. Holland said that they did evaluate other properties but the property owners were not willing to lease their property to Verizon. Some would have been too close to the north and would not help in providing covering to the county line.
Commissioner Eichhorn question if Verizon had a proposed tower in Franklin County.
Mr. Holland replied no, but that the tower would allow coverage down to the county line. A tower has to be in Douglas County to satisfy the license restrictions and gap coverage.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if Verizon could lease a current tower from another cell company.
Mr. Holland replied no, that that would not be possible.
Commissioner Krebs referenced a letter received by the Commission regarding alternative locations. She asked if Verizon could move the tower up a mile to the 59/56 Highway intersection, and use a higher frequency tower to cover Douglas County.
Mr. Holland stated that there would be a coverage gap toward the county line if Verizon did that and that potentially they could build a tower at the Highway intersection and then build another one further to the south.
Commissioner Krebs inquired about why this particular site was selected for the cell tower and why not use farm land instead.
Mr. Holland replied that the cell tower had to be within a certain site ring and that the specific site was primarily picked because it was a commercial use area.
Commissioner Harris asked if the platforms are physical platforms.
Mr. Holland responded yes, there would be two physical platforms on the monopole for the Verizon application.
PUBLIC HEARING
Leonard Koezurowicz, property owner to the south of the proposed location, stated opposition to the cell tower going up at this location. He was concerned that it will destroy property value because the tower will be 350 feet from his house and is also concerned about the noise level from the backup generator when in use or checked for maintenance. He wondered why the applicant could not move the proposed tower ½ mile to the south where it is empty farmland.
Commissioner Harkins asked the public speakers to point out their homes on a map that shows where their home is in relation to the proposed tower.
Walt Babbit, neighbor near proposed tower, opposed the tower due to aesthetic reasons. He does not want to see a tower in skyline view from his house. He stated he was an astronomer and the tower would be an obstruction.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Holland stated that there will be a backup generator inside a building located at the base of the tower but that it will only be used during long periods of power outages. He stated that the generator will not create noise since it will be inside a building. He went on to say that the structure will be a monopole structure. They attempted to pick the best possible aesthetically pleasing tower and that it will not be lit at night. He said that it will function as a utility and the public demands these type of services be provided. He stated that there are over 200,000 calls made daily to 911 from cell phones and that this is a public safety issue as well. He also said that over time the cell tower will blend into the background just like water towers. Mr. Holland said that the appraiser reports that there will be no negative impacts to the residential properties around the proposed cell tower site. He submitted addition reports for the record. He also submitted photos of towers in residential areas for the record.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
Commissioner Burress asked if there was a limit on the production of sound.
Mr. Holland responded by saying the facility will not create sound.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the generator would be diesel or propane.
Mr. Holland said diesel.
Commissioner Krebs questioned Ms. Day if the Commission’s approval or disapproval should be on the suitability of the site.
Ms. Day said that the regulations in the County give the Commissioners some guidance. The property does fit the criteria for the zoning category. In terms of land use beyond that they are not specific to give the Commissioners anything else. The tower will not be lit but there may be light at the base of the structure that should be screened.
Commissioner Burress inquired about screening.
Ms. Day stated that the Commission has the ability to require screening.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if screening was one of staffs recommendations.
Ms. Day answered yes.
Commissioner Burress asked if staff could suggest any limits on sound.
Ms. Day responded that she could not without doing research.
Commissioner Harris asked the applicant to speak about other neighbors who said they may not mind having the site on their location. She wanted clarification from applicant that there was not another area that could be used that would not be so close to residences.
Mr. Holland stated that they canvassed the area and every property owner in the area was sent a letter.
Commissioner Harkins pointed out that just because a property owner was willing does not mean there would not be neighbors who objected to that location.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Eichhorn said his concerns were that it would be on a private road and that he did not think the applicant fully exhausted the search ring for other possible locations.
Commissioner Burress wanted to know if that was a basis to make the applicant spend more money.
Ms. Stogsdill said that the Commissioners would need to make their decision based on the land use and that if it caused the applicant more money that would be their responsibility. She stated that the Commission would need to weigh what the impact of the tower would be at this location.
Commissioner Krebs asked staff how many county towers they have seen recently.
Ms. Day responded that the Commission saw two City and one County tower applications most recently and maybe one or two more over the past year.
Commissioner Erickson stated that the report said that they contacted the commercial establishments at 56/59 Highway and that they were not agreeable.
Mr. Holland said that they were not willing to lease to them because of unknown factors related to the new highway alignment and that it did not have to do with price issues.
Commissioner Harris asked about why a co-location would not be appropriate at the 56/59 Highway intersection.
Mr. Holland responded that it would not be feasible to put a tower at that location as it was outside the search ring and too close to another of Verizon’s facilities to the north. He also responded to Commissioner Eichhorn’s concern about the private road issue, stating that every single one of Verizon’s towers are on private roads.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that the private roads were meant for residencies, not a development tool for infrastructure.
Commissioner Krebs asked Ms. Day to talk about private roads that are developed for private use.
Ms. Day said that private roads would provide access to residential lots and that she did not have a concern about the quality or status of the road. She said that she did not know if the tower itself would produce a lot of traffic. She noted that access to the tower would be from a driveway or access easement extended from the private road. She also stated that County Public Works reviewed the application and made no comment on the private road.
Commissioner Harkins stated that he was concerned about deviating from staff recommendation because it may be a challenge for the applicant to find 2 possible sites and the options could end up worse. He was sympathetic to the concerns expressed by area residents, but moving the tower to another location might just lead to objections from other people.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to deny the Conditional Use Permit based on the case made that the search ring could be made with other alternatives.
Commissioner Burress agreed that Commissioner Harkins’ argument had merit, but that there could be another location that may work better. He would like to have information on the other people that may be willing to have the tower on their site.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that if the Commission denies the CUP then the applicant can look at different locations.
Commissioner Burress said that the applicant could come back with which location would hurt the least amount of people.
Commissioner Harkins stated that he could not vote against the staff recommendation. There were a set of rules that had been followed. He did not see an error in staff’s evaluation or judgment. There was nothing to indicate the review had been done improperly.
Commissioner Krebs agreed with Commissioner Harkins that the applicant had met all of the requirements, even though she sympathized with the neighbors.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated that the Commission cannot deny a project for aesthetics and that it needs to be based on suitability.
Commissioner Burress agreed that he had sympathy for the arguments made by neighbors. He stated that just because staff recommended the CUP does not mean the Commission has to vote in favor of it. He felt there may be some social gain from the applicant going back and doing more research on a different location.
Commissioner Krebs agreed that more data would help their decision. She reminded the Commission that there was a motion on the table
Commissioner Burress said he would be more likely to vote for this application the second time around with more information.
Motion on original motion by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to deny the Conditional Use Permit based on the case made that the search ring could be made with other alternatives.
Motion failed 4-5-1, with Commissioners Burress, Eichhorn, Harris and Krebs voting in favor. Commissioners Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins and Jennings voting in opposition. Commissioner Lawson abstained.
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Jennings, to approve the Conditional Use Permit based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised site plan to show the following:
a. Proposed landscape around the enclosure of the tower base per staff approval;
b. Dimensions of the tower from the south property line;
2. Confirmation of FAA approval to allow for proposed tower in proximity to private landing strip located at 1222 N 200 Road to the west;
3. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following notes per Section 19.4.31 (c ) (4 & 5))
a. “Any tower that is not in use for a period of three continuous years, or more, shall be removed by the owner at the owner's expense. Failure to remove the tower pursuant to
non-use may
result in removal and assessment of cost to the owner of the tower.”
b. “A sign shall be posted on the exterior of the fence around the base of the tower noting the name and telephone number of the tower owner and operator.”
c. “The tower owner/operator shall submit a letter to the Planning Office by July 1st of each year listing the current users and types of antenna located on the approved tower (Reference CUP-08-06-06 in the letter)”.
Motion by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to amend the motion to include a decibel limit on the sound produced by the generator.
Motion failed 4-5-1, with Commissioners Burress, Eichhorn, Harris and Krebs voting in favor. Commissioners Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins and Jennings voting in opposition. Commissioner Lawson abstained.
Vote on motion to approve with conditions stated above:
Motion approved 5-4-1, with Commissioners Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins and Jennings voting in favor. Commissioners Burress, Eichhorn, Harris and Krebs voted in opposition. Commissioner Lawson abstained.
PC Minutes 10/25/06
ITEM NO. 10: RS7 to RM12; 10.74 ACRES; ALL OF LOTS 1-4 OF BLOCK 1 (SLD)
Z-07-21-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 10.74 acres, from RS7
(Single Dwelling Residential) to RM12 (Multi-Dwelling Residential). The property is located at 3000 Sherwood Drive; all of Lots 1-4, Block 1, Deerfield Woods No. 3 Submitted by Donald Funk for Cheer Pole, Ltd., property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Sandra Day introduced the rezoning item for Deerfield Woods and stated that the current zoning for single-family residential development is suitable and consistent with the development pattern of the surrounding area. She described the history of development of the area.
Staff recommended denial of the 10.74 acres from RS7 to RM12 District and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report.
Commissioner Krebs asked staff if the historical issue impacted the rezoning.
Ms. Day responded that it would not.
The following is a memo given to the Commissioners from Lynne Braddock Zollner as an introduction and history on the proposed site:
The subject property for the above zoning request includes an archeological site commonly referred to as the “John Doy” site or farm. According to the National Park Service Network to Freedom data base, on which the site is listed,
The Dr. John Doy homesite, today about three miles northwest of downtown Lawrence, Kansas was part of the original 160 acre tract where abolitionist, John Doy settled in October 1854 as part of the New England Emigrant Aid Company. Doy was called the “General Conductor” of the UGRR in the Lawrence area. On this property he lived in a log structure with family from 1854-1860. In 1999 the remains of a foundation, a limestone well and a cistern were discovered in a wooded part of the original tract by a neighborhood boy. Although no documentation has been found about UGRR activity on the property, there is ample documentation—including his own book published in 1860—of Doy’s UGRR activity. He was captured in January 1859 while taking 13 Blacks north on the UGRR. His daring rescue from the St. Joseph, Missouri jail by “The Immortal Ten” was reported nationally. In 2001, a pedestrian archeological survey of the Doy property was done. Although much of the former quarter-section of the Doy property has been developed, the ruins, some of the woods and a small creek still remain.
(Additional site investigation was done during the Summer of 2005)
Staff determined, based on a field survey using GPS equipment, that the “house” foundation portion of the site is located on land that is dedicated public right of way. Any physical development of this land may be subject to K.S.A. 74-5401 through 74-5408. Enacted in 1967, this state statute recognizes the state's awareness of the need to conserve significant archeological remains on state, county, and municipal lands. It establishes a commission to protect and regulate the removal of antiquities from these public lands.
Staff contacted the State Archeologist and is in the process of identifying the process that will be necessary for development to occur.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Applicant, Donald Funk, did not give a presentation.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the pump station was located off of the cul-de-sac.
Ms. Day said no, the street ends but access to the pump station is through a gravel drive at the end of the street.
Commissioner Harkins inquired if that was a dedicated street.
Ms. Day responded no, there was a utility easement that provided access to the pump station.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mike Riling, attorney representing a neighbor, said the neighbors were most concerned because they simply did not know what the plan was. He stated that the families who purchased these houses relied on the existing single-family zoning. He has not heard a good reason to change the zoning.
Judy Sweets, discussed the historic aspect for the underground railroad and would like to see the site preserved. She showed the Commission pictures of recent archeological activities documenting the site.
Debbie Filkins, mother of the child who found the historic site, expressed concern for the safety of children in the area with the possibility of increased traffic.
Mike Cisnero, stated that the neighborhood opposed the rezoning. He said that they are not opposed to development as single-family but they just do not want multi-family units due to the increase in traffic. He also thinks the historical site should be turned into a park.
Mel Wiedimeier, expressed concern about multi-family units and said he opposed this rezoning.
Kerry Altenbernd, would like to see the land preserved for future economic benefit.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Don Funk agreed with Mr. Altenbernd but he would like for someone to step forward so this will be passed on to future generations. He stated that he has owned the property for 15 years and would like to see something done with it.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Eichhorn asked staff if the Parks and Recreation Department were aware of this historic site.
Ms. Day stated that several different offices have been involved in the review of development requests for the area.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Eichhorn to recommend denial of the rezoning based on the findings of fact presented in the staff report and forward it to City Commission.
Unanimously denied, 10-0.
PC Minutes 10/25/06
ITEM NO. 11: AMENDMENT TO HORIZON 2020, CHAPTER 5-RESIDENTIAL LAND USE (MJL)
CPA-2006-04: Consider initiation for a future public hearing to amendment Horizon 2020, Chapter 5 – Residential Land Use, to replace Figure 5-1, Planning Unit Concept with Neighborhood Concept developed by the CPC (Comprehensive Planning Committee).
STAFF PRESENTATION
Michelle Leininger introduced the item.
The Comprehensive Planning Committee (CPC) worked intermittently since late 2004 on identifying what a neighborhood is and/or updating Figure 5-1 (shown below) in the comprehensive plan. After trying to revamp Figure 5-1 and deciding that there are a variety of ways to define a neighborhood, the CPC decided to produce a description. The neighborhood concept (see attached) includes physical elements that when put together, make a strong neighborhood. These elements can be put together in a variety of ways depending on the existing landscape and what already exists around the proposed neighborhood. The elements are partially derived from the new urbanism principles and include clearly defined edges, identifiable cores, mixed housing types, human scale and connectivity. The proposed neighborhood concept also includes some diagrams of connectivity and a sample design of a neighborhood. The neighborhood concept will be used as a guide for future development of neighborhoods.
Staff recommended initiating a text amendment to Horizon 2020 for future public hearing for the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for chapter 5 of Horizon 2020 to replace Figure 5-1 with the CPC proposed neighborhood concept description.
Commissioner Burress stated that he thinks this is a good improvement but that the neighborhoods should have more green space. He asked Ms. Leininger if this would be possible.
Ms. Leininger replied yes.
Commissioner Krebs stated that the core is the functional center but that the diagram suggested it was more toward the perimeter.
Ms. Leininger said that staff could look into it more and bring it back to the Commission.
Commissioner Harris asked how the plan would work when approving subdivisions and how it would fit into a neighborhood.
Ms. Leininger stated that this would just be a guide.
Commissioner Harris said that usually they see proposals on a smaller scale.
Ms. Leininger said that it depended on what was currently around the property and that it could just be a portion of the neighborhood and does not necessarily have to have all aspects.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the Commission can zone for neighborhoods.
Ms. Stogsdill said that typically the Planning Commission would be looking more specifically at the Urban Growth Area and how land uses are arranged. She stated that typically they have not gone out and initiated rezoning but the City can certainly do it.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the Commission adopts the proposal will T2030 utilize this.
Commissioner Krebs said that it would give them a tool to use when considering items.
Commissioner Jennings said that they want to be able to give developers a sense of guidelines.
Commissioner Erickson stated that Horizon 2020 stated that they should develop a neighborhood concept and this does that. She would like to add to #2 and #5.
Commissioner Krebs pointed out that the neighborhood concept example does not include a school and she would like that to be shown.
Ms. Leininger said that part of the neighborhood concept was that schools were not necessarily being put within each neighborhood.
Commissioner Krebs asked if core parks and schools could be included in the identifiable factors.
Ms. Leininger nodded yes.
Commissioner Harris asked Dan Warner about T2030 and if this new plan would anticipate a significant change in traffic.
Mr. Warner said yes, it allows us to accomplish a long range goal and getting this done ahead of time will help in the long run.
Ms. Stogsdill wanted to clarify that the diagram is in Horizon 2020 and that is the extent of the neighborhood concept. It does not depart from where we were, it just provides us with more description and encourages mixing uses. We are asking the Commission to simply initiate this to be on a future agenda.
Commissioner Burress asked about schools being on the perimeter.
Commissioner Haase said that regarding the traffic model it was his understanding that the template would lead to fewer automobile trips. He stated that they can calibrate the model downward and figure out how many automobile trips will be reduced.
Motioned by Commissioner Lawson, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to recommend initiation of text amendment to Horizon 2020 for future public hearing.
(Commission started action prior to the public hearing by mistake)
PUBLIC HEARING
Professor Alan Black, speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters, was concerned with the diagram and feels that it is a bad neighborhood plan. He understood the diagram to only be 80 acres which he feels is too small for Lawrence. He pointed out that there was not a school in the diagram and that usually the school is in the center of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Harkins said he thought the map was one square mile.
Ms. Leininger explained that the diagram is just an example and that everything shown in the concept does not have to be used. It is just meant to be a guide.
Commissioner Lawson stated that all the Commission should be trying to do is bring it forth for public hearing.
Commissioner Krebs said that it is also helpful to staff to give feedback.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Harris requested staff to put a scale on the example next time it comes before the Commission.
Commissioner Eichhorn thought that putting a scale on the map might be an obstacle to the Commissioners ability to move things.
Commissioner Harris stated that the scale would prevent the public from saying the map was 80 acres when it may be a square mile.
Commissioner Erickson said that they should use the title of “one neighborhood design example” so that people will not think that this is what we are trying to make every neighborhood.
Commissioner Harkins stated that they could put a restriction saying that it could not be more than 4 miles around the perimeter or less than 2 miles. (referring to the standards in #1)
Commissioner Harris said that this restriction may be too small or too big for a neighborhood.
Commissioner Krebs stated that having the scale would help give the Commission direction but would not limit them. She said that maybe staff could look at the number of lots on the diagram and what that would mean scale wise. If this conceptual diagram fits within the range between 2-4 mile perimeter it would be a fair representation of what the Commission is looking for.
Commissioner Krebs gave a summary of what had been discussed thus far:
· Physical and functional center
· Parks and schools
· Open space
· Change subtitle for the example to a heading of “example of a neighborhood design”
· Change the explanation within the map of “live/work unit” to include higher density
· Include a proposed school in place of ice rink
Commissioner Burress suggested that green space connecting neighbors did not have to be a separate item.
Commissioner Haase stated that he agreed with the text changes and that he would like to see four neighborhood design examples using an entire section. He felt that four examples would include topography. He does not think the current diagram gives the Commission proper direction and that four examples would give them a better tool to work with.
Commissioner Harkins said that he supported all the amendments that were suggested. He stated that the first diagram had more elements and that a color diagram would create more confusion.
Commissioner Jennings agreed with Commissioner Harkins.
Commissioner Krebs said that multiple examples would give more options and multiple representations that show how it could be developed.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that he did not disagree but that when they first started this project there were a whole bunch of maps to look at and the CPC did not like them for different reasons. He was concerned about maps overriding the language that they have.
Commissioner Haase said that land owners need to be brought into the process earlier so that a shift to comprehensive planning can be made. He also stated that they are asking staff to take real life situations and start using map concepts on how neighborhoods might look like.
Commissioner Erickson said that they will probably see quite a few examples once they start the Traditional Neighborhood Design code. They will take specific areas of Lawrence and show what it could look like.
Commissioner Krebs stated that she would like to see the example be more reflective of what has been discussed.
Commissioner Burress said that he would support two or more examples.
Commissioner Erickson stated that it would take more then one example because all neighborhoods will not have all elements.
Commissioner Krebs said that if the Commission wants examples then they need to direct staff to get them or allow the Traditional Neighborhood Design process to provide them.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Harkins to initiate a text amendment to Horizon 2020 for future public hearing for the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for Chapter 5 of Horizon 2020 without the map but with the understanding that there will be maps in the future and the following changes:
· #2 Redefine core to indicate it implies physical center as well as a functional center.
· #2 Modify to add “including parks and schools” after civic spaces.
· Identify greenspace as an element (add into an existing number)
· #5 Open space and trails
Unanimously approved, 10-0.
PC Minutes 10/25/06
ITEM NO. 12: T2030 LAND USE SCENARIOS (WWA/DDW)
T2030 Land Use Scenarios: Accept public comment on proposed land use scenarios to be used as base maps for development of the T2030 long range transportation update.
Commissioner Haase stated that when T2030 first started there was very little input and that there needs to be more public interest in Transportation Planning.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Bill Ahrens introduced the item and stated that this would be a continuation of previous discussions. He said that this would not be about fine levels of detail, just a general land use map to help provide data to the transportation planning process. Mr. Ahrens said that they are hoping to bring the future land use maps back to the Planning Commission for approval in December.
Dan Warner provided the following information:
Federal transportation regulations require, among other things, that MPO long-range transportation plans be updated at least every five years and encompass at least a 20-year planning horizon. The Future Land Use Map developed for the preparation of Transportation 2025 (T-2025) is being updated to extend land use scenarios into several areas of the region that are likely to experience development during 2006-2030. Using the T-2025 map as a base, staff has been working with the Planning Commission and T-2030 Committee to develop a 2030 future land use map. After additional discussion on the land use scenarios and Planning Commission agreement that the map is acceptable for use in developing the transportation plan, staff will use the map as a guide for developing the 2030 housing and employment projections needed for the travel demand model.
The T2030 Land Use Scenarios include a typical suburban future growth model and one that has some Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) elements built into the land use assumptions. The TND option was developed based on Planning Commission comments received at the September 27, 2006 meeting. The previous land use options reviewed by the Planning Commission reflected full build-out scenarios. The two maps now reflect a 2030 build-out. Both scenarios have been forward to outside stakeholder groups with notice of future Planning Commission meetings that will discuss the maps. Electronic versions of the maps are posted on the web at: http://www.lawrenceplanning.org/
15% or greater slopes are considered steep slopes. Horizon 2020 encourages the preservation of areas that are characterized by environmental features such as steep slopes. In addition, soil conditions on steep slopes may, in some instances, be severe enough to preclude development. The Planning Commission also discussed showing 10% slope on the maps in addition to the 15+% slope that was shown at the meeting. Due to data constraints, staff is unable to show 10% slope. Data that will help show a 10% slope will be available at the end of the year for the entire County.
A question about whether to use a primarily residential scenario or a primarily industrial scenario in the SE Area remains. Direction from the Planning Commission is needed so that staff can use one or the other on the maps.
Suburban Option
The suburban land use scenario was developed using a combination of adopted policy, existing conditions, and projections based on past build-out patterns of the suburban areas of Lawrence. Where applicable, adopted land use plans are incorporated into the map. The dominant land use is low density residential. Future commercial land use is identified according to Chapter 6 of Horizon 2020. It is assumed that some of the floodplain, especially that around the Wakarusa River, could continue to be used for agricultural purposes into the future. The white areas within the UGA on the map are areas that are projected to remain rural through 2030.
TND Option
The TND land use scenario contains TND options within the generally suburban growth pattern which was developed using a combination of adopted policy, existing conditions, and projections based on past build-out patterns in suburban Lawrence. Staff went a step further with this option by identifying a TND pattern of development for two parts of the overall area.
This TND option concentrates some of the density that is shown on the suburban option for the South of the Wakarusa and West of K-10 areas. The density is concentrated near the school sites and around mixed use centers. The land use options include live/work units and mixed housing types. In addition, it is assumed the density of the Low Density Residential category is of a higher density than in the suburban option. Therefore, the map reflects less density outside of the TND areas.
Staff recommended accepting public comment and continued discussion. Final direction on a Future Land Use Map is anticipated at the Planning Commission November meeting.
Commissioner Krebs asked staff to address some of the comments by the League of Women Voters.
Mr. Warner stated that the area in red at K-10 and Highway 59 was the same as it had been on a previous map and is a designated auto-oriented center. The Mixed Use Commercial Center does not seem to be overly large relative to everything around it. It is limited to neighborhood scale commercial use. He also said that each TND neighborhood is not going to have every use.
Commissioner Krebs said that they should create future neighborhood boundaries.
Mr. Ahrens stated that he could show existing roads, but not future roads.
Commissioner Krebs inquired if in the County when it is outside of the Urban Growth Area are the roads designated as arterials?
Mr. Ahrens responded yes.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated the SE area is lacking in infrastructure and that there is too much industrial on that side of town which creates a lot of commuting.
Commissioner Erickson asked if the TND consultant’s help would impact the map or would it be too late?
Mr. Warner replied that yes, it would be too late because they need the map by December in order to begin the travel demand modeling and analysis.
Mr. Ahrens stated that they are required to do transportation planning every five years and that they can amend the plan after the consultant supplies additional data.
Mr. Warner said that they intended to get some real solid planning from the consultant about the traditional neighborhood concepts for the Urban Growth Area.
Commissioner Harkins stated that he would like to see the advice from the consultant before making a decision. He asked that the Commission develop a schedule that will include a plan to update the long range plan when more data is available.
Commissioner Lawson agreed with Commissioner Harkins.
Commissioner Harris asked if all the commercial centers have been shown on another map?
Mr. Warner replied yes, the centers identified reflect all of the commercial centers depicted in Chapter 6 of Horizon 2020.
Commissioner Burress said that it will not change the demand of the roads very much. Trip generation assumptions are where the difference is made and he wanted to know how walking trips in TND areas might affect overall vehicle trips.
Mr. Ahrens said that this was correct, that the assumptions made are critical.
Commissioner Haase stated that if they can find data that they can rely on then they should, if not the assumptions need to be based on the Commissions best guess.
Commissioner Lawson said that they need to utilize strong reliable information which they do not currently have. He questioned why they were going to spend a lot of time at this point to get something less desirable. He said that the Commission should just commit to update it when more information is available.
Commissioner Haase stated that there are assumptions that need to be made for transportation planning, and many of these are political. He indicated that no outside expertise will help them with the politics. He went on to say that they need to have this plan ready by September 2007 and he encouraged the goal of getting all of the information.
PUBLIC HEARING
Professor Alan Black, speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters, appreciated the consideration of the LoWV comments in their letter. He stated that trip generation could also be walking or transit and that he would like the transit bus system be expanded and the Commission should consider Transit Oriented Development (TOD) neighborhoods as well.
Brandy Sutton stated that there needed to be more detail on the map to determine which areas would be affected. Existing plats should be shown and how they would fit in the TND. She wanted to know what definitions of density were being used on the map.
Commissioner Krebs stated that the density are defined in Horizon 2020, which identifies six units of less per acre for low density residential.
Ken Lassman, resident of Douglas County, questioned whether this plan would meet the needs of Douglas County and that it is very focused on the expansion of Lawrence and does not show preservation of rural areas. He said that there is not enough emphasis on protecting nature and that it will impact people outside of the boxes on the map. He pointed out that the South Lawrence Traffic Way was not on the map and that it is a very incomplete future traffic plan.
Commissioner Haase asked Mr. Lassman if he had familiarized himself with the Rural Development Codes that are in the process?
Mr. Lassman replied no.
Commissioner Haase responded that he thought it would give Mr. Lassman comfort because it addresses some of his concerns.
Daniel Lassman feels that it violates the new urbanism. He thought they should redevelop, not sprawl. He stated that peak oil was an example of what he was talking about. That it will reach a peak and then spike downward. He said the neighborhood shopping centers will be a failure and cause nature to be destroyed, as well as wildlife. He would like smaller scale development.
Jannette Funk was concerned about a possible truck stop and the crime surrounding them and the future auto-related centers.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that a truck stop would just be one type of use that would be permissible in the auto related center. It is supposed to be at major intersection for automobile access. The map is just a reflection of types of uses.
Natalie Lassman was concerned about the environment and wildlife being destroyed.
Commissioner Burress stated that if Lawrence continues to grow, in 35 years the population will include another 100,000 people and it will have to grow somewhere.
Mr. Lassman said that wildlife needs a transportation system also and would like for corridors to connect wildlife to the Wakarusa wetlands.
Commissioner Burress asked staff if the transportation model would change with wildlife corridors.
Mr. Ahrens said that obviously they are showing green space for the floodplain areas which are potential connections. Yes, that would affect the model outcomes.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn to extend the meeting to 10:45pm.
Commissioner Jennings addressed Ms. Funk’s concern about truck stops by saying that a truck stop is only one possibility but that it could be a motel, auto dealer, gas station, etc.
Commissioner Krebs stated that there has been a request to show the roads more clearly and she would like to see more TND developments.
Ms. Stogsdill informed the Commission that the T2030 committee will meet again and that they will see this item again on the December agenda.
PC Minutes 10/25/06
MISCELLANEOUS NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to allow an extension for the Langston Heights Final Plat.
Unanimously approved, 10-0.
Commissioner Harris briefly explained a new committee that will organize materials and plans for new commission orientation. Commissioners Burress, Harkins and Harris will be the members of this committee and hope to have the program ready for March Planning Commission meeting.
Adjourn 10:35pm.