PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Meeting minutes

November 2006

_____________________________________________________________

November 13, 2006 – 6:30 p.m.

Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins, Harris, Jennings, Krebs and Lawson

Staff present: Stogsdill, Day, M. Miller, Pool, Rexwinkle, J. Miller and Kemerling

_____________________________________________________________

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Receive and amend or approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of October 23 and 25, 2006

Comm. Eichhorn clarified that the Rural Zoning Committee met and discussed the existing regulations.  He suggested striking out the phrase “what the County Commission and what the Planning Commission passed on.”

Comm. Harris stated the order of the motion on page 27 was incorrect.  She suggested moving the motion to amend to the bottom of the paragraph after the original motion.

ACTION TAKEN

Comm. Eichhorn moved to approve the October minutes with changes.  Comm. Finkeldei seconded. 

          Motion was approved unanimously, 10-0.

 

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

T2030:  Comm. Haase reported that T2030 met prior to the Planning Commission mid-month. 

PCCM: Comm. Eichhorn reported that the T2030 plan and subsequent major roads projects were discussed at the mid-month meeting.

 

COMMUNICATIONS

Ms. Stogsdill outlined the following communications:

 

 

 

 

 

EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUESTS

 

There were no ex parte communications, abstentions or deferral requests indicated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 11/13/06

ITEM NO. 1:                          FINAL PLAT FOR MIRACON PLAZA; NE CORNER OF CLINTON PKWY & WAKARUSA DR (LAP)

 

PF-09-26-06:  Final Plat for Miracon Plaza. The three lot Commercial and Office project is located on the NE corner of Clinton Parkway and Wakarusa Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Timothy W. Schmidt, property owner of record.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Finkeldei to recommend approval of the Final Plat for the Miracon Plaza and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, 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.      Submittal of public improvement plans for water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater mains, and Wakarusa Drive improvements, including sidewalks and associated required geometric improvements.

 

 

          Motion carried unanimously, 10-0 as a part of the Consent Agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 11/13/06

ITEM NO. 2:              FINAL PLAT FOR VAN GO MOBILE ARTS ADDITION; 715 NEW JERSEY (JCR)

 

PF-09-27-06:  Final Plat for Van Go Mobile Arts Addition. This proposed 1 lot contains approximately .613 acres. The property is located at 715 New Jersey. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Van Go Mobile Arts, Inc., property owner of record.

 

  ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Finkeldei to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Van Go Mobile Arts Addition and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements, subject to the following conditions:

1.      Revise the face of the plat to show the following:

a.      An expanded area for the public sidewalk and utility easement to include the area of the existing municipal water line.

b.      Tract acquired from BNSF Railway Company should reference Recorded Book Number 1011, Page 342, please revise.

2.      Submittal of a revised Master Street Tree Plan.

3.      Provision of an Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for sidewalk improvements to E. 7th Street.

4.      Provision of the following fees and documentation:

a.      Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;

b.      A Temporary Utility Agreement

 

 

Motion carried unanimously, 10-0 as a part of the Consent Agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 11/13/06

ITEM NO. 3:              FINAL PLAT FOR FALL CREEK FARMS 13TH PLAT; W OF KASOLD DR & S OF PETERSON RD (MKM)

 

PF-09-28-06:  Final Plat for Fall Creek Farms 13th Plat. The proposed seven lot residential subdivision contains approximately 3.121 acres. The property is located West of Kasold Drive and South of Peterson Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Sojac Land Company, L.C., property owner of record.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Finkeldei to recommend approval  of the Final Plat of Fall Creek Farms 13th Plat and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for acceptance of easements subject to the following conditions: 

 

1.       Provision of a revised Final Plat with the following changes:

a.      Right-of-way widths shown for Knotted Bend Court and Running Ridge Drive.

b.      Notation that the sidewalk along Knotted Bend Court will be installed with this development as shown on the preliminary plat.

c.      Inclusion of a note on the final plat, stating: “Adjacent property owners will be required to maintain all drainage easements in accordance with Section 20-1101(d)(4)(f) of the City Development Code”

d.      Submission of public improvement plans prior to the recording of the Final Plat with the Register of Deeds Office;

e.      Notation added that the 15’ utility easement located on the east property line of Lot 1, Block Four, Fall Creek Farms 10th Plat will also serve Lot 7 of this plat.

2.       Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.

3.       Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;

4.       Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a.      Copy of paid property tax receipt;

b.      Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;

c.      Provision of a complete master street tree plan with revisions made to the species list to delete “Marshall’s seedless’ and replace with Summit or Patmore.

d.      Provision of street sign fees.

 

 

Motion carried unanimously, 10-0 as a part of the Consent Agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REGULAR AGENDA (NOVEMBER 13, 2006) MEETING:

 

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:

 

SWEARING IN OF SPEAKERS:

 

Items 4A & 4B were discussed simultaneously

PC Minutes 11/13/06

ITEM NO. 4A:           PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAPLE LANE ADDITION NO. 2; 1426-25 AND 1445-47 MAPLE LN (JCR)

 

PP-09-14-06: Preliminary Plat for Maple Lane Addition No. 2. This proposed two lot  subdivision contains approximately .477 acres. The property is located at 1423-25 and 1445-47 Maple Lane. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Michael and Penny Harrell, property owners of record.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Joe Rexwinkle, Planning staff, gave an introduction and overview of the project.  He stated that Maple Lane between 13th and 15th Street currently have a right-of-way (r-o-w) of 45 feet.  The minimum r-o-w standard is 60 feet.  The applicant has requested a variance from the requirement to provide the additional 15 feet of r-o-w.  Staff supports the applicant’s request and recommends the variance be approved on the grounds that the City is asking for the applicant to provide a 15 foot wide pedestrian, roadway and utility easement in lieu of r-o-w.  Mr. Rexwinkle said there are two additional plats on Maple Lane in which the subdivider of the property was not required to provide additional r-o-w.  The remainder of the neighborhood is unplatted.  Mr. Rexwinkle indicated there is an existing duplex on the north half of the property which was constructed prior to the lot being platted.  The existing duplex was built at the setback line and requiring additional r-o-w would make the existing structure non-conforming. The provision of the 15 foot wide pedestrian, utility and roadway easement in lieu of the r-o-w would allow for future road improvements when necessary. 

 

Comm. Burress asked if applying the minimum r-o-w standard would constitute hardship for the applicant and questioned whether the two previous plats on Maple Lane were approved under the provisions of the new law or if they fell under previous definition of hardship. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkle replied that he believed that Hines Subdivision No. 2 was approved in 2004 and Maple Lane Addition No. 1 was approved in 2000. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill confirmed that Hines was approved after the definition changed. 

 

Comm. Burress asked what led to the previous Planning Commission approval to allow a variance on the Hines development.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle stated that according the minutes from the Hines Subdivision No. 2, the Commission made a determination based upon the previous approval of Maple Lane Addition No. 1. 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that the there was a discussion regarding the fact that the west side of the street is unplatted but developed.  She said that obtaining r-o-w for all of the properties would create non-conforming properties all along the street. 

 

Comm. Burress asked how this situation ties into the definition of unnecessary hardship.

 

Ms. Stogsdill said that sufficient factors exist to constitute hardship. 

 

Comm. Haase asked if the applicant is barred from proceeding with development if the standard r-o-w is maintained. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkle stated that the existing duplex would become non-conforming and it would make it more difficult for the second duplex to be constructed due to space issues.

 

Comm. Haase restated his question for the applicant.

 

Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, for applicant, answered the applicant would not be precluded from development but it would preclude what they currently have in mind for the property.  He said that in the spirit of the waiver that was granted in previous applications and if the City did not exact r-o-w standards on the rest of the addition, the standard of development would be isolated in this one development.  He stated that holding this application to a different standard would be unnecessary and would deviate from a pattern established on that side of Maple Lane.

 

Comm. Krebs asked if not granting the variance would be a hardship issue for the applicant.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that what Mr. Herndon stated guides the Planning Commission in this case.  There is an existing developed area.  There were homes on this property and it is not raw ground waiting to be developed.  She stated that an undeveloped lot would have to have structures sitting 15 feet further back.  This would not create a lot size issue as they are sufficiently deep and wide to provide for a duplex.

 

Comm. Burress stated that he believes precedence is of interest and asked Ms. Stogsdill for a definition of hardship.  Ms. Stogsdill read the definition of unnecessary hardship from the code. 

 

“In cases where there is hardship in carrying out the literal provisions of these regulations (such as design criteria pertaining to lot width, lot depth, block depth, etc.), the Planning Commission may grant a variance from such provisions, except that in cases where there is hardship in carrying out the literal provisions found in Sec. Error! Reference source not found. (wastewater disposal systems) the appropriate Governing Body may grant a variance from such provisions.”

 

 

 

Comm. Burress stated that the only definition that fits in this circumstance is “arbitrary and capricious” and asked Staff for the legal definition of the term. 

 

John Miller, City Attorney, replied that he did not have the definition at hand but would be happy to research the answer. 

 

Public Hearing

No members of the public spoke regarding this item.

 

Commission Discussion

Comm. Finkeldei commented that he could not cite specific cases but he has read cases in which creating non-conforming structure is a hardship and that homeowners could experience issues with insurance and mortgages due to non-conforming use.  He continued that not granting the variance would create a situation in which a standard is imposed on this applicant that is not imposed on others. 

 

Comm. Harris stated that she had visited the site and noted the other buildings on the street are in a similar location as this request.  She said she believes the request makes sense. 

 

Comm. Harkins asked for a history of precedence in this situation. 

 

Comm. Burress said he believes arbitrary and capricious is a reasonable argument.  He does not feel takings is a good argument as this would create a situation in which money would be owed to anyone who had a non-conforming lot created due to change in zoning code.  Comm. Burress stated that takings would not be a good precedent to set. 

 

Comm. Jennings commented that this is infill and that is exactly what Planning attempts to do. 

 

Action Taken

Moved by Commissioner Jennings, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Preliminary Plat for Maple Lane Addition No. 2, subject to the following condition:

1.       Add a note to the face of the plat that states that Public Improvement Plans showing sanitary sewer service for Lots 1 and 2 will be submitted for review prior to final plat approval.

 

 

Commission Discussion

Comm. Haase suggested finding a tool that will allow Staff and the Commission a way to work out this type of development without granting a variance.  He stated without granting the variance, it would create an undesirable development situation and said this is an extension of the discussion regarding a situation where the Commission was asked to grant a variance for curb cuts. 

 

 

 

Comm. Burress said this is distinguished from the curb cut situation as a curb cut creates friction in traffic which can cause harm.  He continued that there will never be a development that meets the standard thus there is no need to uphold the rule and a pattern that is not being held. 

 

Comm. Krebs indicated the motion needed to be amended to approve the variance in 4A prior to approving the preliminary plat. 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Harris to approve the requested variance to Section 21-607.3 of the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to the required minimum right-of-way width for local streets.

                    

                     Motion passed unanimously, 10-0.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Previous motion on the floor was to approve the Preliminary Plat for Maple Lane Addition No. 2, subject to the following condition:

1.      Add a note to the face of the plat that states that Public Improvement Plans showing sanitary sewer service for Lots 1 and 2 will be submitted for review prior to final plat approval.

 

                     Motion passed unanimously, 10-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Items 4A & 4B were discussed simultaneously

PC Minutes 11/13/06

ITEM NO. 4B:           FINAL PLAT FOR MAPLE LANE ADDITION NO. 2; 1426-25 AND 1445-47 MAPLE LN (JCR)

 

PF-09-29-06: Final Plat for Maple Lane Addition No. 2. This proposed two lot subdivision contains approximately .477 acres. The property is located at 1423-25 and 1445-47 Maple Lane. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Michael and Penny Harrell, property owners of record.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Harris to approve the variance request and approval of the Final Plat for Maple Lane Addition No. 2 and forwarding it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and right-of-way, subject to the following conditions:

1.      Provision of a revised Master Street Tree Plan graphic that shows the 15’ public utility, pedestrian and roadway access easement.

2.      Provision of a Public Improvement Plan showing sanitary sewer service for Lots 1 and 2 if the City Commission does not grant a waiver to Chapter 19, Section 214 of the City Code.

3.       Execute an Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for future street and sidewalk improvements.

4.       Provision of the following fees and documentation:

a.      Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and

b.      A Temporary Utility Agreement

 

 

Motion passed unanimously, 10-0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 11/13/06

ITEM NO. 5:                          REVISED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ABERDEEN ON 6TH ST; SE CORNER OF W 6TH ST & STONERIDGE DR (SLD)

 

PDP-01-02-06:  Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6th Street.  This proposed multi-family planned residential development contains 108 proposed apartment units and including four duplex units on approximately 9.59 acres.  The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of W. 6th Street and Stoneridge Drive.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering for MS Construction Co., Inc., property owners for record.  This item was deferred from the July Planning Commission meeting.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Sandra Day, Staff, provided a summary and update of the project.  She indicated the project has been seen by the Planning Commission multiple times over several months.  Ms. Day outlined the location of the property, the land use considerations and the various iterations the project has undergone.  She said the applicant was asked to rework grading improvements on KDOT exclusive easements due to KDOT prohibitions. The project is required to have access to a collector or arterial street along Stoneridge Drive as a Planned Unit Development.  The secondary access for the project is for emergency purposes only.  Ms. Day stated the applicant will provide a crash gate that prohibits direct access to Winthrop Court which will be subject to ornamental and aesthetic improvements to the gate in the final development plan (FDP).  There will be an opticom device or some other device to allow emergency access to the project.   Ms. Day stated the July version of the preliminary development plan (PDP) included a detention pond with small berming; the current project reconfigures the detention pond, moves it further back and provides a berm adjacent to the existing residence.  There will be more landscaping which will be larger in scale to compensate for the growing season.  Ms. Day indicated the clubhouse and pool were relocated further to the center of the project and away from the surrounding existing single family residences.  There has been dialogue regarding the need to have some type of architectural elements which is reflected in condition 5 in the Staff Report.  The buildings will have architectural elements on multiple sides which will be visible to public streets and residences. 

 

Applicant presentation

Todd Thompson, Thompson, Ramsdell & Qualseth, for the applicant, MS Construction said he was asked to become involved several months ago to work with the neighbors and address concerns raised by the neighborhood.  He stated that not all issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of everyone involved but they had made some progress.  Mr. Thompson outlined the issues that have been addressed by the applicant including:

·         Moving the pool and clubhouse to the center of the development.

·         Changing the configuration of the buildings in the southeast corner.

·         Changing one of the buildings to duplexes.

·         Allowing emergency access only in the southeast.

·         Limiting buildings to two stories.

·         Addressing elevation concerns along 6th Street by adding retaining walls.

Mr. Thompson stated the project has changed in an effort to address concerns raised by the neighborhood.  Many conditions previously imposed by Staff have been integrated into the project and there are currently 5 recommended conditions in the Staff report; the applicant has agreed to all of them.  Mr. Thompson asked the Commission to approve the PDP based upon these factors. 

 

Paul Werner, Werner Architects, for applicant stated that a great deal of effort has been made to keep buildings low to the ground so they do not tower over the homes.  Duplexes have been added to Stone Creek Drive and the smallest buildings, the one bedroom units, will be closest to the residences.  He said the clubhouse and pool have been moved to the center of the project and they no longer overlook anyone’s back yard.  The units on the second floor of the clubhouse have been eliminated.  Mr. Werner stated the detention area was reworked to add retaining walls which allow the building to be moved farther away from the existing home.  Berms and larger pine trees will create a buffer in the area.  Mr. Werner said the Commission previously requested to see renderings of the buildings which the applicant provided.  The renderings are fairly schematic and they will go into greater detail in the FDP.  The color of the buildings is still to be determined.  The stone facing will be added where it will be most visible to residents and passersby.  Mr. Werner stated that an effort was made to place apartment balconies and patios in areas that do not face the existing house in the area and the shortest distance between the apartment building and the existing house is 114 feet. 

 

Mr. Thompson commented that enhanced materials will be used where the buildings will be visible to the outside of the complex.  The applicant’s position is that they will do whatever the City would like them to do in regards to the access point and they will meet with the Fire Department and Public Works to ensure the crash gate does not slow down emergency services. 

 

Comm. Harris questioned who would own and maintain the gates.

 

Mr. Thompson replied that the gate would be owned and maintained by the applicant.

 

Comm. Burress recalled residents indicating there were three different opinions on stormwater issues from three different engineers.  He questioned whether there is testimony on record that the stormwater issue will be worsened by this development.

 

Ms. Day said she remembered a resident stating an engineer said the stormwater would be made worse by the development.  The City Public Works Director and the Stormwater Engineer have both commented that the drainage issues have been addressed.

 

Public Hearing

Mark O’Lear, 917 Stonecreek Drive, said that he was the resident who spoke with the engineer who stated that the stormwater situation would be made worse and the engineer was Christopher Storm with Landplan Engineering.   Mr. O’Lear said he did not feel any of the issues brought up by the residents have been resolved by the applicant.  He felt the crash gate was a done deal over 8 months ago but this is the first time he has seen it agreed to by the applicant. Mr. O’Lear said that one of the Planning Commissioners said this plan does not meet Horizon 2020 guidelines and he is questioning why it meets those guidelines now.  Mr. O’Lear stated he has learned the lesson that he should never buy a home at the edge of town. 

 

Comm. Eichhorn asked what Mr. O’Lear saw as the biggest issues. 

 

Mr. O’Lear outlined the major issues as follows:

·         There is no transition between the last house and the apartment building next door.

·         The crash gate is not shown on the plan.

·         There are still 3 opinions regarding the drainage and stormwater issue. 

·         The materials that will be used in construction are still in question.

 

Comm. Eichhorn asked why drainage and stormwater was still on the list of issues when  all of the City engineers reviewing the project have stated the drainage works now and is adequately sized. 

 

Mr. O’Lear commented that he would not be concerned with the drainage question if everyone involved said the same thing but he did not feel any engineer refuted the 3 different opinions. 

 

Veronica Howard, 921 Stonecreek Drive, spoke regarding the elevations of the project.  She stated that the apartment buildings will tower over the existing homes, particularly over Mr. Lange’s home.  Ms. Howard said that when she purchased her home she asked the realtor how the adjacent property was zoned and if there were plans regarding development of the property.  She was told that the property was zoned single family and only later found out that it was zoned agricultural.  She would not have purchased the property if she had known about the agricultural zoning.  Ms. Howard asked the Planning Commission to deny the preliminary development plan as she did not believe this to be the best gateway to Lawrence. 

 

Cory Lange, 901 Stonecreek Drive, said that in a previous meeting, a statement was made that regarding transition, earlier precedence sometimes takes effect.  He questioned whether removing transition in this circumstance is creating a precedence for future development.  Mr. Lange asked the Commission to consider the history of this developer and showed photographs of other developments and the landscaping issues. 

 

Comm. Burress asked what Mr. Lange meant by transition.

 

Mr. Lange said that he considers transition higher density to lower density.

 

Comm. Eichhorn stated that transition and height keep coming up as issues.  He said with the acreage and open space provided in this plan and the current zoning, the developer could possibly choose to build taller buildings for density and asked the residents to consider whether this plan is better than what could potentially happen.

 

 

Gwen Klingenberg showed additional photographs of the existing Aberdeen on 23rd landscaping.  She stated that rental vacancy rates are high and rising and there is an overbuilt market.  She expressed concerns that if building continued on the west side of the City, the apartments on the east side will be lost.  She stated this is not the right time to build more multi-family as the population is not growing as fast as the number of vacant buildings.

 

Comm. Harkins asked if Ms. Klingenberg was reading her own comments or quoting another source. 

 

Ms. Klingenberg said that she received the information from Professor McClure at the University of Kansas. 

 

Tim VanLeer, 5213 Branchwood Court, said that Winthrop Court was created to access single family homes, not multi-family.  He stated concerns that this plan wants to put multi-family dwellings adjacent to a high end neighborhood.

 

Kevin Lowes, 913 Stonecreek Drive, said that he would like assurances that this plan is going to work out.  He commented that the trust level has eroded and that the situation has become contentious.  He stated he was concerned that the neighborhood be maintained. 

 

Alan Cowles, 1121 Stoneridge, agreed with the neighbors that spoke before him.  He said the stormwater issues are not yet resolved and that there has been a great deal of double talk rather than a good faith compromise.  He asked the commission for a clear plan that is concrete and addresses the neighbors concerns regarding traffic, the crash gate and stormwater issues.

 

Comm. Burress stated that he was at a loss as to how to address the trust factor which seemed to be the most prevalent concern for the evening.  He advised the neighbors that if a condition appears in the development plan, it is legally enforceable and can be trusted. 

 

Mr. Cowles said that the plan needed to be made clearer.

 

Closing Comments

Mr. Thompson stated that there is never going to be complete agreement by all parties on all the issues and he believes it is a misstatement to say that there has been no progress.  He continued, all staff conditions have been incorporated into the plan or been made conditions.  He suggested that those concerned with issues in regard to other properties report those issues to the City’s enforcement staff and demand compliance.  Mr. Thompson said that the design criteria and enforcement are at a higher standard than 12-15 years ago.  In regards to transition, the south building will be at essentially the same elevation as Mr. Lange’s home and the north buildings will be carved into the hill.  He stated the design criteria for the buildings themselves will be outlined in the Final Development Plan. 

 

 Comm. Jennings asked to see the site section again.

Paul Werner showed the graphic of the site section and indicated they did not survey Mr. Lange’s property. 

 

Comm. Burress asked if someone was present from Landplan that could speak to the concerns regarding the drainage issues.

 

Chris Storm, Landplan, stated that he was the engineer that did the drainage study and worked with the City Engineer and the Stormwater Engineer.  He indicated all of the studies performed have met with the City of Lawrence stormwater criteria. 

 

Comm. Burress asked if the stormwater runoff was going to get better, become worse or stay the same as a result of the new development.

 

Mr. Storm said that the situation is not going to get worse.  He said the difference between the single family use and this plan is that the multi-family use will be detained and there will be a net runoff.  There will be more runoff but the discharge will be level to that of single family development. 

 

Comm. Burress commented that if there were only single family homes, would there be more runoff than if the property were undeveloped but the criteria would not be any worse than if single family was built.

 

Mr. Storm said that the runoff would be equivalent to single family development; there would be more runoff but it would not be detained. 

 

Comm. Eichhorn asked Mr. Storm to confirm that if the plan were for a single family development, the stormwater runoff would be the same. 

 

Mr. Storm confirmed that Comm. Eichhorn was correct.

 

Comm. Jennings said that following Mr. Storm’s logic, every home in the neighborhood worsened the stormwater situation. 

 

Mr. Storm answered in the affirmative. 

 

Comm. Harkins asked Staff for a brief history of the zoning of the property.

 

Ms. Day replied that rezoning requests began as early as 2005 in 3 areas.  The preliminary plat was completed in the late 1990’s and extended a cul-de-sac that showed lots on the east which is where Winthrop Court was originally established.  The Planning Commission initiated a planned residential development with 12-15 dwelling units per acre.  The City Commission further restricted the dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 12 across the board and limited the height to 2 stories.  The zoning is contingent on the approved preliminary development plan.  It has been approved but has not yet been published.

 

Comm. Finkeldei asked about the zoning of the church property to the east.

 

Ms. Day replied that she believed it to be single family.

 

Comm. Finkeldei asked about access to that property. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill stated that  a siteplan was approved with the access at Stonecreek and Branchwood.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Jennings said he has faith in the Stormwater Engineer’s report and he believes the design improvements will help the stormwater situation.

 

Comm. Krebs commented that the majority of the issues seem to be with transition and height. 

 

Comm. Jennings asked how many feet of rise will exist between the home and apartment. 

 

Mr. Werner said they used 2 foot lines to indicate rise.

 

Comm. Jennings asked how many feet of rise will exist once berming is complete. 

 

Mr. Thompson said the elevation went from 1019 to 1026 feet.

 

Comm. Eichhorn commented that the cut will provide a great deal of material for berms. 

 

Comm. Haase said that the applicant has complied with all the suggested changes from the last Planning Commission meeting.  He said he would ideally like to see more green space but the plan has gone too far to do that and he would like to move the preliminary development plan forward.

 

Comm. Burress said he wanted to explain the situation to the neighbors before moving forward and outlined the following:

·         The engineers are not saying the development will make the stormwater situation better but they are not saying it is going to be worse.  In terms of improving the situation, the neighbors need to lobby City Hall.

·         The sense of distrust should be addressed.  While there cannot be a promise that the obligations will be met, there can be a promise that there will be a mechanism in place for enforcement of the development plan. 

 

Comm. Finkeldei asked that the following language, “which are in conformance with general architectural character of surrounding area”, be added on to condition 5 in the Staff Report.

 

Mr. Werner agreed.

 

Comm. Harris stated she was pleased with the majority of changes made to the plan but she expressed a concern with transition; primarily that there will be 32 units abutting 4 single family lots. 

Comm. Haase said he remembered a discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting asking for duplex transition and determined it was not an aesthetically pleasing design.  The applicant was asked to address transition with landscaping and berming.  He believes the applicant has done the best they can to ensure compliance with what they have been asked to do.  

 

Comm. Krebs said she believes it is past time to ask for different transition.  Row homes that could possibly be more aesthetically pleasing could have been requested at an earlier stage in the process.

 

Comm. Jennings commented that other than the one existing home owned by Mr. Lange, the other areas are owned by the developer.  The apartments will be built prior to any other development on the adjacent lots which will mitigate the element of surprise.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Haase, seconded by Comm. Jennings, to recommend approval of the revised Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on Sixth based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions and with Condition 5 as amended by Comm. Finkeldei:

 

1.      Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to show a restricted gate along Winthrop Court per City Fire and Public Works staff approval.

2.      Provision of a note that states access gate shall be for emergency purposes only. General vehicular access immediately to Stonecreek Drive from the development shall be prohibited.

3.      Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for intersection and geometric improvements to W. 6th Street and Stoneridge Drive.

4.      Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan that shows installation of larger size (10 gallon minimum size) planting along the south side of the development for lots that abut Stonecreek Drive per staff approval.

5.      Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that states: “The Final Development Plan shall include specific building elevations that note building materials to be used for roof, siding, and facing elements visible from the public streets and viewable from abutting properties which are in conformance with general architectural character of surrounding area”.

 

          Motion passed 9-1 with Comm. Harris in opposition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

MISCELLANEOUS NEW OR OLD BUSINESS

 

Comm. Krebs appointed Comm. Eichhorn to the Commercial Design Committee

 

MISC. ITEM NO. 1:

 

MISC. ITEM NO. 2:

 

 

 

 

Consideration of any other business to come before the Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

Planning Commission in recess at 8:35 p.m and will reconvene at 6:30 p.m. on 11/15/06

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEGIN PUBLIC HEARING (NOVEMBER 15, 2006):

 

­­­­­­­November 15 2006 – 6:30 p.m.

Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins, Harris, Jennings, Krebs and Lawson

Staff present: Stogsdill, M. Miller, Rexwinkle, J. Miller and Kemerling

 

COMMUNICATIONS

 

a)     Receive written communications from staff, Planning Commissioners, or other          commissioners.

Ms. Stogsdill presented a letter from the League of Women Voters and a memo from Staff regarding Item 8

 

b)     Disclosure of ex parte communications.

No ex parte communications were indicated.

 

c)      Declaration of abstentions from specific agenda items by commissioners.     

No abstentions were indicated.

 

 

 

SWEARING IN OF SPEAKERS:

 

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 11/15/06

Item deferred prior to the meeting at the applicant’s request

DeferredITEM NO. 7:                          PRD-2 TO OS; 1.623 ACRES; SE CORNER OF CONGRESSIONAL & OVERLAND (LAP)

 

Z-09-25-06:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 1.623 acres, from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) to OS (Open Space). The property is located on the SE corner of Congressional and Overland. Submitted by BFA, Inc., for Village Meadow’s LLC, property owner of record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Items 8A, 8B & 8C were discussed simultaneously.

PC Minutes 11/15/06

NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:

 

ITEM NO. 8A:           ANNEXATION OF 13.3 ACRES; 31ST & OUSDAHL (MKM)

 

A-09-04-06:  Annexation of approximately 13.3 acres located at 31st and Ousdahl. Submitted by Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A., for RA & JG Limited Company, property owners of record.

 

ITEM NO. 8B :    RS-10 AND COUNTY A TO RM-15; 24.5 ACRES; 31ST & OUSDAHL (MKM)

 

Z-09-26-06:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 24.5 acres, from RS-10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) and County A (Agricultural) to RM-15 (Multi-Dwelling Residential). The property is located at 31st and Ousdahl. Submitted by Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A., for RA & JG Limited Company, property owners of record.

 

ITEM NO. 8C:           PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE EXCHANGE AT LAWRENCE; 31ST & OUSDAHL (MKM)

 

PP-09-15-06:  Preliminary Plat for The Exchange at Lawrence. This proposed 1 lot  residential subdivision contains approximately 24.5 acres. The property is located at 31st and Ousdahl. Submitted by Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A., for RA & JG Limited Company, property owners of record.

 

Staff Presentation

Mary Miller, Planning Staff, gave an introduction and overview of the planned annexation, rezoning and preliminary plat for The Exchange. Ms. Miller said that the annexation conforms to criteria set in Horizon 2020 (H2020), adequate services are established, and there is a 36 inch sanitary sewer line which will not have capacity until the Wakarusa Water Reclamation plant is on line.  There is a 24 inch line further to the south which the City Utility Engineer has approved tying into.  The applicant will place funds in escrow for a new pump station that will be required.  The applicant will provide the lines and construct a temporary pump station which is to be connected prior to any building permits being issued.  Ms. Miller said the City Engineer stated this would not pose a problem.  She indicated that the Commission had received a memo from Staff which provided a revised condition for the annexation and plat. 

 

Ms. Miller continued that the applicant is requesting rezoning of the property.  The area was zoned RS1 in the late 1960’s and the zoning category automatically converted to RS10 with adoption of the Land Development Code.  The property is currently being used for agricultural production.  To the north is an unplatted area which is a mobile home park.  Directly to the west is a tire repair shop and to the southwest is Pine Ridge Plaza.  Ms. Miller stated she had received public comment regarding the rezoning which listed concerns regarding traffic impact on the neighborhood and the uncertainty of the status of the South Lawrence Trafficway on stormwater drainage.  She said the proposed land use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and that policies and goals recommend higher density residential. 

 

Ms. Miller stated the preliminary plat is for one lot, multi-dwelling residential development.  It provides a stormwater detention pond in the southeast corner, 50 feet of right-of-way (r-o-w) for a future minor arterial street on the east side and 25 feet if additional r-o-w for 31st Street.  Ms. Miller said public comment had been received from the League of Women Voters which stated concerns about multiple buildings on one lot and suggested it should be a planned development.  She said one of the conditions of RM zoning is good transportation access and Ms. Miller showed a future bikeway map.  A bikeway is planned on 31st Street and to the south which would lead to the paths in the Wal-Mart area.  There would be good bicycle access and it would be a good location for transit.  Ms. Miller pointed out that transit routes 7 & 8 currently service the area; she spoke with the Transit Administrator who said that the Lawrence Transit System is working on coordinating with the University bus system.  If that occurs, route 7 would be removed and two route 8’s would be established.  Staff recommends approval of the annexation, rezoning and preliminary plat.

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mike Berry, Professional Engineering Consultants, for applicant said that the Staff report addresses many technical issues and they agree with the amended language suggested.  The applicant would request that the annexation be approved with the amended condition regarding the sanitary sewer that is addressed in the memo as opposed to the original condition contained within the Staff report.  Mr. Berry indicated the applicant has no issues with the zoning conditions.  In regards to the plat requirements, Mr. Berry requested adopting the amended conditions regarding the sanitary sewer and also requested reconsidering the dedication of 25 feet r-o-w for 31st Street.  He said there is currently 50 feet r-o-w on this stretch of 31st Street.  Mr. Berry does not want to dedicate 25 feet of r-o-w if it cannot be obtained to the east and west. 

 

Scott Schlosser from Fairfield Residential introduced himself and indicated he is available to answer questions.

 

Comm. Harris asked why the word “construction” was not on the revised condition as it appeared on the original and wondered if that aspect of the condition had changed.

 

Ms. Miller stated the applicant would have to construct the pump station and the funds would be placed in escrow for future modifications or decommissioning of the pump station.

 

Comm. Finkeldei asked if the site plan does or does not show the additional 25 feet of

 r-o-w along west 31st Street.

 

Mr. Berry said the site plan did not show the additional 25 feet.

 

Comm. Krebs asked Staff to clarify the r-o-w issue for the Commission and asked if previous applicants have been required to provide the same.

 

Ms. Miller replied that Home Depot had additional r-o-w requirements and that it has been required based on the 31st Street Corridor Plan.

 

Comm. Eichhorn inquired why it was necessary to change from RS10 zoning to RM15.

 

Ms. Miller stated the RS-1 zoning was automatic.  The area had automatically been zoned RS-1 when annexed and this had converted to RS10 with the adoption of the Development Code. The RM15 zoning was a more appropriate use for the area.

 

Comm. Krebs quoted the League of Women Voters letter which suggested concurrent zoning of RM15 and an overlay district.  Comm. Krebs questioned the protocol for use of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) under the current code.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that the Code has the planned development as an overlay, not base district.  In the new code there must be a base conventional district with all planned development overlays.

 

Comm. Krebs asked what criteria are used to determine if a planned development overlay is appropriate. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill indicated the intent was to establish development standards that allowed development to occur in conventional districts.  In the previous code, there were not as many standards in site planning in conventional districts.  The general intent of the new code would be to manage these exceptions. 

 

Comm. Krebs asked if PUD standards are now integrated into the code.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied in the affirmative.

 

Comm. Burress asked the status of the legal protection of the Wetlands on the property.

 

Mr. Schlosser stated a federal permit would be required from the Corps of Engineers before any action could be taken that would compromise the Wetland area. 

 

Comm. Erickson commented that the staff report mentioned a second phase was being considered and asked how many acres would be involved with that phase.

 

Mr. Berry said that the 2nd phase consisted of a 60 acre parcel to the south and showed an aerial photo of the area. 

 

Comm. Erickson asked if the intent was to make phase 2 multi-family. 

 

Mr. Schlosser said they may build a 2nd phase or they may sell the parcel but it will be dependent upon the success of the 1st phase of the project.

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING

Carol Bowen, 403 Dakota, Park Hill Neighborhood resident, stated that she was involved in forming the original Louisiana Street Traffic Calming Coalition.  She said she has read all of the information and comments printed in the Lawrence Journal World and feels an assumption has been made that all residents will be students.  Ms. Bowen thinks that it is not going to be that clear cut and that there may be residents that are not students.  She said another assumption is that residents will use Iowa to get to campus and pointed out that students have a life in between classes with flexible schedules.  She stated that Louisiana Street will be the main corridor to campus, grocery stores and restaurants.  Ms. Bowen said there are long held beliefs that Louisiana should be widened to campus but various pressures do not allow that to happen.  There is limited access to the neighborhood via Park Hill, Utah or Dakota.  She said Vermont Street is no longer safe as cars stack up and add to the visibility problem.  Ms. Bowen stated the assumption that traffic will not use Louisiana Street is not valid as the claim was made before regarding Target, Wal-Mart and Home Depot.  She said there are not enough through streets in the area.  Ms. Bowen stated that with the limited access to the neighborhood, the 4 schools in the area and the multitude of driveways, widening Louisiana Street would not be easy and left turn lanes would not work well. She said that the neighborhood had, in the past, received assurances that there would be no commercial development east of Home Depot.

 

Comm. Jennings asked Ms. Bowen about being told in the past that commercial development would not creep east and how that statement relates to this project. 

 

Ms. Bowen replied that the size of the development and density is worrisome. 

 

Mike Carron, 315 Park Hill Terrace, President of Park Hill Neighborhood Association, said there are over 200 households in the neighborhood and they are all concerned about how imprisoned the neighborhood is becoming.  There are many driveways that back directly onto Louisiana and the new schools are impacting traffic.  He believes the neighborhood is reaching the saturation point and traffic is becoming a safety concern.  There is increased difficulty getting in and out of the neighborhood, particularly during rush hour.

 

Comm. Burress questioned whether stoplights on the intersecting streets would be a potential solution.

 

Mr. Carron replied that he was not sure.  He said it may help residents exit their driveways but it may exacerbate traffic issues.

 

Jeanne Ellermeier, 2529 Arkansas, Indian Hills Neighborhood Association, said she has lived in this location for 42 years.  She stated she is very concerned with the traffic issues regarding this project.  The developers have spoken to the neighborhood association and the time they spent was appreciated but she does not feel the traffic impact has been sufficiently addressed.  She said the comparison of the development to an office area is not correct.  With 888 bedrooms, not all residents would depend on the bus service to get around the city.  The hours of travel will not be just during office hours.  Ms. Ellermeier does not believe Louisiana Street can handle the traffic it already has and stated there are larger implications to the City in a decision to recommend approval.  She stated the City is at a crossroad in all of southern urban development in Lawrence and urged the Planning Commission to be careful of the precedence their decision will set.

 

Joyce Wolf, 2535 Arkansas, Indian Hills representative, referenced a September 2000 letter sent to the City urging a comprehensive plan for the south side of Lawrence.  She stated there are external pressures on the City to go forward with development to avoid being characterized as hostile to development.  Ms. Wolf said being asked to approve a large apartment complex without a future plan is haphazard development and asked if this is what is wanted for the south side of Lawrence.  She stated she would like to see this request put on hold until the Southern Development Plan, which is 20 years old, is updated.  Ms. Wolf said there seems to be an excess of rental vacancies and suggested the City perform a study similar to the Commercial Study of the downtown area to answer the question of what impact rental units will make to this neighborhood as well as the other rentals in the City.  Ms. Wolf asked the Planning Commission not to approve the requests as it would add to the haphazard manner of development in the area and suggested the Commission instead initiate a land use plan for the south side. 

 

Comm. Finkeldei asked if the Indian Hills Neighborhood Association was involved with the 31st Street Corridor Study.

 

Ms. Wolf said she did not believe the members were asked to take part in the study.  She said she would like the neighborhoods to be part of the process and stated that studies have been done for other areas and she believes it is their turn.

 

Comm. Lawson asked the status of the Southern Development Plan (SDP).

 

Ms. Stogsdill answered that the SDP was initiated in the middle of the H2020 process.  It was done in the mid 1990’s when Target was proposed in Nieder Acres.  She said there was a similar request for property adjacent to this site to have a development in 2000 and the request was made for the City to look at updating the SDP.  At the same time, staff was working on the H2020 amendment that expanded the Urban Growth Area (UGA). That amendment was adopted in January 2004 and intended to combine the SDP update with a sector plan for the southern UGA.  Ms. Stogsdill stated the plan is on the long term planning list and has not risen to the top.  She commented that the Southeast Area Plan is not complete and five H2020 chapter updates are in process and not yet complete. The 6th and Wakarusa Plan, the 6th and Nodal Plan, the Northwest sewer planning have taken up most of the staff’s time in the last 3 years.  Ms. Stogsdill stated that H2020 addresses the area and it is not totally unplanned.  She said Staff has begun to look at the UGA and has a contract with Placemakers to have charettes looking at southern UGA and western UGA, however, not everything will be planned at that time.

 

CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Schlosser said that in response to Ms. Bowen’s comment about the type of resident that will be living in the development, this is a student project and for students only.  The space will be rented by the bedroom, will be fully furnished with a common kitchen area and students parents will have to co-sign the lease.  There will be quarterly inspections, extensive recreation facilities and will be a gated community accessible by card only; this is not a typical rental situation.  Mr. Schlosser stated that he understood Park Hill’s traffic concerns but there is nothing they can do to correct the existing issues.  He said the conditions that are part of approval provide r-o-w, agreements not to protest benefit districts for road and intersection improvements.  R-o-w will be dedicated on 31st Street and new infrastructure will be installed.  Mr. Schlosser referenced the Traffic Impact Study which indicates no significant impact on the current traffic conditions.  All traffic will be directed on to Ousdahl, not to 31st Street.  There are numerous amenities within walking distance and the development will be serviced by public transit systems.  Mr. Schlosser stated not many students will be driving to the University as there are few new parking permits being issued and there is a new Park and Ride lot at Clinton Parkway and Iowa.  Traffic will be scattered due to varied student schedules and the estimate is that there will be 2100 trips daily.  Mr. Schlosser said that under H2020, this area was earmarked for office and industrial use which would have resulted in an additional 2404 daily trips.  He said Fairfield researches the area prior to submitting an application and would not be in front of the Planning Commission if there was not a strong indication that the development will be successful.

 

Comm. Burress asked if Fairfield does any brownfield development or if the projects are primarily greenfield developments.

Mr. Schlosser answered that they do brownfield development but not as frequently.  Fairfield performs a full review of environmental, historical and archeological factors as well as wetland studies and jurisdictional studies.  Fairfield also tries to maintain mature trees.

 

Comm. Harkins asked Mr. Schlosser to comment further on the affect of the additional 25 foot r-o-w dedication.

 

Mr. Schlosser replied that giving up the r-o-w could be accommodated by reusing their site plans but would like to ensure this is something the City will actually need.  Mr. Schlosser stated he was not certain others on the same side of the street have dedicated the r-o-w and would prefer not to give up the r-o-w.

 

Comm. Burress questioned whether there are hydric soils outside of the wetland area. 

 

Mr. Schlosser answered that there were not hydric soils, just the Wetland.  He said that a jurisdictional wetlands study was done, the area has been farmed and the development will stay out of the stream and riparian area.

 

Comm. Harris asked what percentage of the traffic is predicted to utilize 31st Street.

 

Mr. Berry displayed a diagram, Figure 5, from the Traffic Impact Study which showed existing traffic conditions obtained from the City Traffic Engineer in morning and evening peak hours. 

 

Comm. Harris questioned whether there will be significantly more trips going east rather than west to Iowa Street. 

Mr. Berry replied that assumptions are made and modeled on existing traffic patterns.  He said there will be a significant amount of traffic going up Ousdahl which is the established traffic pattern. 

 

Comm. Jennings asked if there was really any way of presuming how much of the traffic would be headed east using afternoon peak hours. 

 

Mr. Berry referenced the existing traffic at that location.

 

Comm. Finkeldei asked Staff to explain the 31st Street Corridor Study.

 

Ms. Miller stated that the Study looked at different alignments of the South Lawrence Trafficway (SLT) and at what 31st Street would need to be in the future.  The City stated an additional 50 feet of r-o-w would be needed for future improvements to 31st Street. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill said that the Commission saw residential development occurring just west of Mary’s Lake and the requirement to provide r-o-w for that development was in accordance with the 31st Street Study.  The additional r-o-w will be necessary to improve 31st Street.  The residential development near Mary’s Lake was required to provide the additional r-o-w.

 

Comm. Burress asked where the minor arterial on the east is going to go to in the south.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that it is conceptual as an alternate location for Louisiana should the 32nd Street alignment occur.

 

Comm. Krebs asked the applicant to address the comment that an office or industrial use will produce 2400 more trips daily.  She questioned what size office complex, in square footage or number of workers, would account for 2400 additional trips.

 

Mr. Berry answered that traffic generation for office versus residential is a standard set by the manual from the Institute of Traffic Engineers.  The manual provides formulas used to calculate standard daily trips dependent upon usage of the land.  Office park use is calculated at 195 trips per acre,  multi-family residential at 6.63 trips per dwelling unit.

 

Comm. Eichhorn questioned whether the office calculations were based on the area in phase 1 or included phase 2. 

 

Comm. Haase stated that he did computations using the square footage of the office building and applied 11 trips per 1000 square feet.  He looked at weekly trip generation and converted it to daily.  Comm. Haase said it seems the applicant used the square footage of the entire site to calculate trips per day and computations should be limited to the square footage of the buildings only.

 

Comm. Burress asked how Staff makes recommendations when the questions posed are more discretionary and have to do with good public policy; should applicants be approved if there is no code preventing the approval of their application. 

 

Ms. Miller replied that this project is seen as transitional and a lesser intensive use between commercial and residential as recommended by H2020. 

 

Comm. Burress asked about how Staff analyzes land use and timing.

 

Ms. Stogsdill said that H2020 talks about having infrastructure concurrent with development.  This can be served by streets and infrastructure.  The Utilities Department stated a temporary pump station is appropriate at this location.  H2020 does have language about analyzing commercial impact in an area but not the impact of multi-family development.  This is not a new question.  In the 1990’s there was a huge influx of building permits and an unusual number of apartments built in one year; the Commission had discussions about how much apartment development should be allowed.  There is no current policy on which to base those decisions. 

 

Comm. Burress stated there is direction that wherever possible infill development should be utilized to maintain the quality of housing stock and that growth should be controlled.  He asked if the Planning Commission could logically find, on that basis, that the timing for this project is not right.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that the Planning Commission has unlimited authority to recommend.

 

Comm. Eichhorn asked if there is anything in the Comprehensive Plan relating to student housing being closer to campus. 

 

Ms. Miller said she did not see anything directly relating to student housing.

 

Comm. Burress asked if there was anything regarding minimizing driving distances.

 

Ms. Miller replied that there was not.

 

Comm. Krebs stated that she felt the recommendation for approval was based on appropriate transition as supported by H2020 and asked for clarification of what was meant by appropriate transition. 

 

Ms. Miller said that the UGA map in H2020 looked at the southern portion and area directly to the east of this parcel and that H2020 recommended either residential or office usage. 

 

Comm. Burress questioned whether there is enough code in place to protect what happens inside the parcel pertaining to setback rules for buildings, emergency access road rules, etc. 

Ms. Miller replied that the fire code addresses issues regarding space between buildings and access.  The new development code includes design standards in the site planning process. 

 

Comm. Burress asked if the code addresses setback between buildings and pedestrian access. 

 

Ms. Miller said there is not a provision for setback between buildings but there are additional standards in the Code on open space requirements and adequate pedestrian access is required as part of the site plan.

 

Mr. Schlosser stated the Fair Housing Standards require handicap accessibility and International Building Code dictates required setbacks. 

 

Comm. Harris asked for clarification on the current level of service and propsed level of service for Louisiana Street. 

 

Mr. Berry referred to Table 1, Row 4 of the Traffic Impact Study and stated that in the morning peak hours, level of service are at C & F.  After development, the level of service will remain at C & F.  He explained that in the grading system, A is good and F is a breakdown which includes long delays, traffic and queues.  C is an acceptable grade at a peak hour. 

 

Comm. Harris asked if the Traffic Impact Study looked at the traffic moving north on Louisiana. 

 

Mr. Berry said it did not as City guidelines ask the Study to look at intersections, not mid-points. 

 

Comm. Harris asked if the prediction was that more traffic would be going straight east rather than north.

 

Mr. Berry replied that was correct and based on existing traffic patterns. 

 

Comm. Krebs pointed out that eastbound traffic is predicted to increase and that for a student-only development it is unlikely that students will be traveling east. 

 

Comm. Finkeldei stated that most students do not travel at the peak morning hours and the Study shows peak morning hours. 

 

Comm. Burress said that if building on the periphery is not prevented, it is where things get built as it is less expensive for the developers to build there.  If building on the periphery is unrestrained, the center of the City will be affected.  He asked if Staff concurred that there is an overcapacity of rental dwellings with a 10% vacancy. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that she did not know the current vacancy rate.

 

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Jennings said he did not have a problem with the 25 foot r-o-w if it had been requested of others.  His feeling is that it had not as it would not have been possible to the west.  Comm. Jennings recalled that this area was recommended for use as high density residential in the past, there had been an application that wanted more intense retail uses and it was denied.  He said that there was similar development on the west side of Iowa, behind Target, and that this type of request is not without precedence. 

 

Comm. Harkins stated the argument and concern about the traffic situation is real.  He thought it compelling that the University has made efforts, through the Park and Ride program, to provide off-campus parking.  Comm. Harkins said this location will provide access for residents walking to restaurants, shopping and theaters and will reduce vehicle miles traveled compared to developments built without these services.  He said the Commission should be concerned about vehicle miles traveled in the future and that he was generally impressed with the good use of this project. 

 

Comm. Erickson commented that this seems to be incremental development without a plan.  She said she was disappointed with the site plan and the traffic patterns in the area should be more closely studied before developing the area. 

 

Comm. Haase said that the City Commission saw similar development on the northwest side and ordered an area plan.  The 31st and Iowa area will fail as the City continues to develop which will add to the F level of service at 31st and Louisiana.  He stated there will be severe traffic problems in this corridor.  He said he will support rezoning to urban reserve and make it a priority to develop an area plan to realistically assess traffic impact.

 

Comm. Harkins commented that the Planning Commission is responsible for doing the planning.  He said development should not be stopped because the job of crafting the report has not been accomplished.  Comm. Harkins said he would not have trouble putting this area at the top of the list but he felt one project would not harm what is already existing.  He asked Comm. Haase if Transportation 2030 (T2030) is considering this issue.

 

Comm. Haase responded that this is not an issue the Transporation Committee will take on directly.  T2030 is working on broad land use projections and transportation infrastructure; this is a bit beyond the T2030 scope.  He said the need for a  temporary pump station signals the development, is premature and the City is 4 years out from being able to service sewer at this site. 

 

Comm. Harkins stated there is an existing sewer on the site that City Engineers have indicated will work. 

 

Comm. Haase replied there is less priority in planning this area because it cannot be served with the existing sewer. 

 

Comm. Finkeldei commented that it is ironic that if the entire tract was developed at once the property would hook into the 24 inch sewer system. 

Comm. Haase replied that the temporary pump station would still be necessary to get through to the sewer line.

 

Comm. Jennings said, in regards to the area plan for the corridor, after this property there is not much left to plan as much of the remaining area is wetlands.  He questioned what is left that is development-related.

 

Comm. Haase stated the area immediately east to Louisiana has substantial room for development as does the area north of 31st Street from Home Depot to Louisiana and has the potential to exacerbate traffic issues.

 

Comm. Harkins questioned how to solve a traffic problem that already exists by stopping this and every other project in this area of the city to develop a plan.  He asked if development is stopped to create an area plan, what changes.

 

Comm. Haase responded that an area plan would look at build out scenarios and traffic implications in the area which would provide information on what projects are feasible.  He continued that the City’s expenses could be quantified and development could be asked to defray the costs. 

 

Comm. Krebs stated with the timing of the development it is within Planning Commission’s purview to say that changing zoning is not appropriate at this time.

 

Comm. Finkeldei said that the plans are consistent with H2020 and there is not a plan in place for the area to deal with existing traffic issues.  He suggested looking at benefit districts and perhaps asking existing merchants to help defray costs of a benefit district.  Comm. Finkeldei stated that Staff and the applicant have anticipated future issues and have addressed how to fix them.

 

Comm. Eichhorn stated he was conflicted regarding the rezoning from RS10 to RM15.

 

Comm. Krebs cited the H2020 land use map which shows office, industrial or warehouse use.  The text is the only thing identifying that the area could be higher density residential. 

 

Comm. Harkins asked for clarification that the current zoning was a “holding zone”.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that it was and the process of automatically zoning newly annexed property to RS-1 stopped in the 1990’s.

 

Comm. Krebs said that infrastructure is a general issue the Planning Commission deals with on a regular basis and that timing is frequently a struggle and whether development pays for itself.  She commented that there now exists a situation in which Lawrence is catching up for years when development was a little ahead of its time.  Comm. Krebs stated H2020 does not indicate timing of development or give a chronology and she believes this plan does not address finer details.  She said in the long term there are substantial areas still undeveloped that will affect traffic and development will need to catch up.

Comm. Jennings stated that he is not sure whether development is ahead of sewers or sewers are behind development.  He said he feels this is an appropriate use for the area.

 

Comm. Harris questioned how long it typically takes to complete an area plan.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied best case scenario, 4-6 months.

 

Comm. Krebs asked what type of detail and guidance for long term infrastructure could be expected from an area plan.

 

Ms. Stogsdill said it varied but there have been plans which included specific timelines regarding development and infrastructure such as 6th and K-10 which indicated building permits could not be issued until the 6th Street improvements were complete.  She also stated part of the timing is gathering property owners for public input and pointed out that Placemakers will be in the area doing charettes at the end of January.

 

Comm. Haase noted that the northwest nodal plan (6th Street and K-10) is a better benchmark plan. 

 

Comm. Finkeldei commented that the plan will ultimately say the 31st and Louisiana corridor is failing and that the traffic problem must be fixed.  He said the ability to solve the issue will be a huge problem which will take a great deal of time and it will take even more time to get an agreement on how to implement plans which will continue to hold up development.  He asked if there would be a delay until a plan has been developed or until the problem is solved.  If the Commission wants to restrict development until traffic in the area is fixed, the applicant should be advised accordingly.

 

Comm. Krebs stated that wise planning would be to solve the issues before making land use decisions.

 

Comm. Haase said part of planning is understanding fiscal constraints.  He questioned who will pay if the land is developed at this density and with infrastructure needs.  He believes the community needs to know the ramifications and costs of such decisions. 

 

Comm. Lawson stated he was conflicted and empathized with the neighbors who spoke to the traffic issues on Louisiana Street.  He said he would be inclined to be supportive but not with great enthusiasm as he could see many of the obstacles to the development and is not certain it can be supported from a pragmatic standpoint. 

 

Comm. Harkins commented that this is a fairness issue.  The rules, land, interest, development and Staff recommendations all concur and the Planning Commission is not saying “yes” because necessary planning has not been done.  He said this one project will not define the future of the region and that this project meets all standards.  Rather than allowing developers to go to the time and expense of going through the process and taking Staff time, say yes to the project and give other developers a warning that there would be no further development approved until an area plan is completed, then do more area planning after.

 

Comm. Haase stated that zoning is a privilege and this request should be considered in light of many factors in order to make a recommendation to the governing body.  He said one test is the impact of development on the area and that timing of the development may be at issue as well.  Comm. Haase felt the Planning Commission was being asked to look at a fairly high density multi-family project before having the information needed to provide proper direction.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Finkeldei, to recommend approval of the requested annexation of approximately 13.3 acres located at the southeast corner of the intersection of W 31st Street and Ousdahl Road and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings found in the body of the staff report subject to the condition as revised in the Staff Memo:

 

  1. Prior to issuance of any building permit the funds must be placed in escrow for the future modification and decommissioning of the temporary pump station.

 

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Burress asked if there was an obligation to move forward on the zoning and preliminary plat if the property is annexed and if there is an obligation to have a plan to handle the infrastructure.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that the there is an obligation if the annexation is unilateral but it is not the case in this request.

 

Comm. Harkins stated the annexation, rezoning and preliminary plat are a package and questioned whether the applicant would want the property annexed if the rezoning and preliminary plat are not approved.

 

Comm. Burress asked the applicant if it was known that the rezoning and preliminary plat would be denied, would they want the annexation denied as well.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that the Planning Commission makes the recommendation and the City Commission will make the decision regarding this action.  The applicant has the ability to pull the items off of the City Commission agenda.

 

Comm. Haase stated his belief that the annexation is in the public’s best interest and is appropriate at this time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to recommend approval of the requested annexation of approximately 13.3 acres located at the southeast corner of the intersection of W 31st Street and Ousdahl Road and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings found in the body of the staff report subject to the following revised conditions:

 

  1. Prior to issuance of any building permit the funds must be placed in escrow for the future modification and decommissioning of the temporary pump station.

 

Motion passed unanimously, 10-0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 11/15/06

Items 8A, 8B & 8C were discussed simultaneously.

 

ACTION TAKEN ON Z-09-26-06 (Item No. 8B)

Moved by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Finkeldei, to recommend approval of the 24.5 acres from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) and County A (Agricultural) Districts to RM15 (Multi-Dwelling Residential) District and forwarding it to the City Commission 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 ordinance.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Burress stated he will not vote for the rezoning due to the timing.  He said the area will be developed but feels it is premature to do so at this time due to an absence of an area plan and the negative impact to the City in discouraging future infill development.  He stated traffic impact is a consideration but not a sufficient reason to vote against the rezoning.

 

Comm. Eichhorn noted that there are times the applicant has been asked to change to lower density.

 

Comm. Krebs stated her rationale for voting against is not about specific density but about the timing of the project.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to recommend approval of the 24.5 acres from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) and County A (Agricultural) Districts to RM15 (Multi-Dwelling Residential) District and forwarding it to the City Commission 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 ordinance.

 

Motion failed, 5-5, with Comms. Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, Jennings and Lawson in favor and Comms. Burress, Erickson, Haase, Harris and Krebs in opposition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 11/15/06

NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:

Items 8A, 8B & 8C were discussed simultaneously.

 

ACTION TAKEN ON PP-09-15-06 (Item No. 8C)

Moved by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Harkins to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Exchange at Lawrence subject to the following revised conditions:

 

1.       Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for construction of future minor arterial road on the east border;

2.       Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future signalization and intersection improvements at Louisiana and 31st Streets.

3.       Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future street improvements to W 31st Street.

4.       Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for any necessary permit for development of the wetland shown on the plat and provide the Planning Office with a copy of the permit, or with documentation showing that a permit is not needed.

5.       Provision of a revised Preliminary Plat with the following changes:

a.      Location and dimensions of proposed pump station;

b.      Location and type of fencing and lighting for the proposed pump station;

c.      Note that an access easement will be provided on the final plat to allow the City Utilities Department unlimited access to the proposed pump station;

d.      Note that a Transfer of Ownership for the property where the proposed pump station will be located will be executed before the final plat is recorded;

e.      Note that funds will be placed in escrow after the approval of the final plat for the future decommissioning and modification of the temporary pump station, and that no building permits will be issued until the funds are in escrow.

f.       The existing and proposed sidewalks must be shown with dimensions, with a notation that the proposed sidewalk will be installed during construction of the development.  It must be noted that sidewalks will be constructed to City Standards.

g.      Proposed detention pond must be shown on the plat, with a note that it is a private drainage easement which will be maintained by the property owners.

h.      An additional 50’ of right-of-way must be dedicated for W 31st Street.

 

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Ms. Stogsdill stated the applicant requested the decision on the preliminary plat be delayed.  She said that as the Planning Commission is the final decision maker on the preliminary plat and it does not move forward to the City Commission, if it is approved the applicant is responsible for fulfilling the conditions set forth in the Staff report.

 

Comm. Krebs asked for clarification on approving the preliminary plat without approving the rezoning.

Ms. Stogsdill answered that the preliminary plat would allow the applicant to move forward with some planning but without the rezoning the project cannot move forward.

 

Comm. Eichhorn asked the applicant’s preference.

 

Mr. Schlosser said he would prefer to defer the preliminary plat to the December meeting in order to speak to the property owner. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill stated the annexation and rezoning will go forward to the City Commission the first or second week of December and the Planning Commission meets the 18th and 20th of that month.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Comm. Lawson moved to withdraw the motion on the floor to recommend approval of the preliminary plat.  There was no objection from the Planning Commission.

 

Comm. Lawson then moved to defer the preliminary plat to the December Planning Commission meeting, the motion was seconded by Comm. Eichhorn.

 

          Motion passed unanimously, 10-0.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Burress suggested the Planning Commission consider studying H2020 policy issues, minimizing the number of auto trips, traffic issues and the impact on existing residents.

 

Comm. Krebs said those issues could be studied as part of an area plan and asked if Comm. Harris could absorb some of these items on the parking lot list.

 

Comm. Eichhorn stated the Chair has the discretion to form a new committee to address the area plan.

 

Comm. Lawson said the Comprehensive Plan Committee (CPC) has been the focal point on many of these issues and wondered if there was any way to experiment with a different approach.  He stated there needs to be a consistent group dealing with area plans.

 

Comms. Burress and Haase recommended the City hire 3 additional planners to allow Staff to spend more time addressing area planning.

 

Comm. Harkins discussed the Matrix study which focused on regulatory concerns and did not specifically address what the Commission is currently discussing.  He stated he would like to send a message to the City Commission to help sort out the planning process which can be overwhelming.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that it would be worth looking at developing some sort of framework to provide a response.  She said there are plans to add more staff but probably not on the long range side.  Ms. Stogsdill stated the product from Placemakers will assist in the planning process and will provide a broad brush to the Urban Growth Area. 

 

Comm. Harris asked how many additional planners were recommended by Matrix.

 

Ms. Stogsdill said two were recommended.

 

Comm. Harkins stated the Matrix study did not look at long range planning and the additional staff recommendations have nothing to do with the long range side.

 

Comm. Finkeldei said he would like further analysis of Staff needs before recommending a specific number of additional planners to the City Commission.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Comm. Harkins moved to send a message to the City Commission to extend the Matrix contract to analyze the long range planning process.  Seconded by Comm. Finkeldei.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Haase stated the motion makes the assumption that Matrix has expertise in analysis of the long range planning process.

 

Comm. Harkins replied that Matrix is already analyzing the City processes and has earned the respect of the City Commission.  He said he has had the opportunity to speak with Matrix and is sure they can complete an analysis from the process perspective. 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to send a message to the City Commission to extend the Matrix contract to analyze the long range planning process.

 

Motion passed unanimously, 10-0.

 

At this time the Commission moved to Item 12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESUME PUBLIC HEARING:

PC Minutes 11/15/06

ITEM NO. 10:           REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)

 

TA-10-10-06: Consider amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted. Initiated by the Planning Commission at their October meeting.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Joe Rexwinkle, Planning Staff, gave an introduction and overview of revisions to Chapter 20, Development Code.  He outlined changes to Articles 4, 5, 9, 10 and 13. 

 

 

Comm. Eichhorn asked if there will be a negative impact in delaying the development process if allowing a longer period for notification.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle stated the certified property ownership list is provided by the applicant and this change will allow the applicant additional time to request the list from the Douglas County Clerks office, prior to submission of the list with the application.

 

Comm. Harris asked if it was intended to change the words “commercial and industrial” on page 5 to “nonresidential”. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkle replied that it would be good to change the wording to nonresidential for clarity as the Commercial and Industrial Districts are commonly referred to as nonresidential districts elsewhere in the Code.

 

Comm. Harris asked if the street tree placement and required distance from the curb was for new construction.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle replied that it was and would be required at the site planning stage. 

Comm. Harris stated that street tree placement in older areas is a character defining feature. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkle said that Traditional Neighborhood Design addresses street tree and sidewalk placement and it is also dependent upon where utilities are located.  He suggested the development of the parallel code may provide some information that could be incorporated into the Development Code to address street tree and sidewalk placement in older neighborhoods.  At the very least, the changes proposed should be accomplished prior to the adoption of the Subdivision Design and Improvements Article so that the street tree section is consistent with the new article.

 

Comm. Burress took issue with the language on page 4 that states “the footprint of all accessory structures will be equal to” and suggested it should read either “not greater than” or “not less than” or “may not exceed”.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that she would like to take a look at the recommended language changes.  She said that the Planning Staff looked at applying these lot situations to many areas and wanted to use positive language in the code such as “you may do…” as opposed to “you many not do…”

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING

No members of the public spoke regarding this item

 

ACTION TAKEN

Comm. Burress moved to forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-10-10-06] to Articles 4, 5, 9, 10 and 13 “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” to the City Commission with two changes two 533(4) and 908(c) as recommended by Comms. Burress and Harris and outlined below.  Seconded by Comm. Eichhorn.

·   533(4)

       Building Coverage

The combined footprint of all detached covered Accessory Structures may not exceed the footprint of the Principal Building , or 20% of the total area of the Lot, whichever is greater.

A detached Accessory Structure may not have a larger footprint than the Building footprint of the Principal Building .

 

(ii)     The combined footprint of all accessory structures may not exceed the  footprint of the principal building, or  20% of the lot area, whichever is greater; moreover the footprint of all structures  may not exceed the maximum building coverage as permitted by section 20-601(a) or (b) for the corresponding building district.

 

 

 

 

 

·   908(c)

(c)   Commercial and Industrial Districts Nonresidential Districts

The location of off-Street Parking Areas in Nonresidential Zoning Districts shall comply with the adopted city design standards and the following standards:

District

Allowed Location

Minimum Setbeck from Right-of-Way (feet)

Minimum Setback from Residential Lot Lines (feet)

CN1

Not allowed between the Facade of the Building with the main entrance and the Street.

 

 

 

 

15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

CO

CN2

CD

Prohibited between a Building and any Street

CC

No restriction except as specified in Sec. O

CR

CS

IBP

IL

IG

H

GPI

OS

      

 

 

                             Motion passed unanimously, 10-0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 11/15/06

ITEM NO. 11:            TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)

 

TA-10-11-06:  Consider revisions to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies identified since originally updated.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Joe Rexwinkle, Planning Staff, gave a brief overview and introduction to the text amendment.  Mr. Rexwinkle stated that through the review of the proposed Development Code, a number of issues were identified that required “clean up or clarifying text” or are suggested for revision to address public comment.  Initiation of the suggested revisions will improve the implementation of the Development Code. TA-10-10-06 represents specific amendments to various articles as outlined in the following table.

 

Brief explanations of the reason for the changes are described in the table in small caps.

 

 

Pg. No.

 

Section No.

20 -

Recommended Text Change

Article 1. Introductory Provisions

Article 2. Base Districts

Article 3. Overlay Zoning Districts

Article 4. Use Table

Article 5. Use Regulations

Article 6. Density and Dimensional Standards

6-1

601(a)

Modify the Residential District Density and Dimensional Standards Table to include the RM12D (Multi-Dwelling Residential District - Duplex)

 

 

 

The RM12D District is differentiated from the RM12 District in that it permits only duplex building types which is why it may have been left out of this table.  However, without being included in this table it is unclear what the standards in RM12D are.  The district should be added to the table to provide clarity and eliminate any question as to what the standards are.

 

6-2

601(b)

Reference to [4] in the Residential Districts Density and Dimensional Standards Table seems unclear

 

 

 

The footnote [4] states “Applies only to Lots platted after the Effective Date.”  It does not direct us where to look for lots platted before the effective date.  Must be clarified.

 

6-1

601(a)

Reference to [5] in the Residential Districts Density and Dimensional Standards Tables seems unclear

 

 

 

The footnote [5] appears throughout the table in reference to minimum setback requirements.  The footnote states: “Additional Setback restrictions apply to properties developed adjacent to RS zoned properties.”  It is not clear what the additional setback restrictions are.  Additional language must be added to this footnote that elaborates on what the additional restrictions are or references a section of the code that states the additional restrictions.

 

6-2

601(b)

Reference to [5] in the Nonresidential Districts Density and Dimensional Standards Table seems unclear

 

 

 

The footnote [5] states “Applies only to Lots platted after the Effective Date.”  It does not direct us where to look for lots platted before the effective date.  Must be clarified.

 

6-2

601(b)

Reference to [9] in the Nonresidential Districts Density and Dimensional Standards Table seems unclear

 

 

 

The footnote [9] appears throughout the table in reference to minimum setback requirements.  The footnote states: “Additional Setback restrictions apply to properties developed adjacent to RS zoned properties.”  It is not clear what the additional setback restrictions are.  Additional language must be added to this footnote that elaborates on what the additional restrictions are or references a section of the code that states the additional restrictions.

 

Article 7. Planned Development Districts

Article 8.Subdivision Design and Improvement Regulations <<Reserved>>

Article 9. Parking, Loading and Access

Article 10. Landscaping and Screening

Article 11. General Development Standards

Article 12. Floodplain Management Regulations

Article 13. Development Review Procedures

13-8

1301(q)(1)

Revise the content requirements for public notification for public hearing items

 

 

 

The language within this subsection specifies what the content of all public notices shall contain including (1) the date, time and place of the public hearing or date of action that is subject of the notice, (2) describe the property in the application by street address or by general description, (3) describe the nature and scope and purpose of the application or proposal, and (4) indicate where additional information may be obtained.  While this amount of detail may be necessary for mailed or newspaper notice, in staff’s opinion it is not necessary for posted sign notice.  This amount of information on a posted sign is often too cluttered to be legible from a distance and often times does not resolve any curiosities or questions one might have after noticing the sign.  Due to this, staff is researching other methods of posted sign notification that are more clear and legible to the passer-by from a distance and will propose such language at the public hearing for this proposed amendment.  For these reasons, staff suggests that the content required for mailed and newspaper notice remain as is, with an exception for posted notice.

 

13-37

1305(m)(1)

Eliminate the provision that requires newspaper notification

 

 

 

Newspaper notification is not required for the initial notification of a site plan application, it should not then be required for an appeal to a site plan decision.

 

Article 14. Boards and Commissions

Article 15. Nonconformities

Article 16. Violations, Penalties and Enforcement

Article 17. Terminology

 

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

There was no discussion regarding this item.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Eichhorn, seconded by Comm. Harris, to initiate the proposed revisions [TA-10-11-06] to the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” for public hearing at the December Planning Commission meeting.

 

                        Motion passed unanimously, 10-0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 11/15/06

ITEM NO. 12:           REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)

 

TA-10-12-06: Consider amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to define a new use [private dining facilities] that could be permitted through a Special Use Permit process in residential districts.  Initiated by the City Commission on October 17, 2006.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Joe Rexwinkle, Planning Staff, gave a brief overview and introduction to the text amendment.  Mr. Rexwinkle stated this text amendment was initiated by the City Commission and is to permit private dining in certain residential districts with standards applying.  This text amendment will amend Articles 4, 5 and 17.  Mr. Rexwinkle explained the minimum standards and that the amendment to Article 5 will allow for additional use as a new, very specific, subsection.  The amendment to Article 17 will add the use “Private Dining Establishment” as a defined term. 

 

Comm. Krebs stated that Horizon 2020 does not define neighborhoods and asked what criteria neighborhoods have to meet.  She also asked for a definition of mixed use. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkle indicated there was an attempt to define mixed use on a neighborhood scale in subsection 3 of 20-539 General Standards for Private Dining Establishments. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill referenced the Code definition of mixed use.

 

Comm. Krebs stated that lots are mixed use if there are multiple uses on one lot.  She questioned whether the term “mixed use” referred to an area where there is one lot that is a certain use and another that is a different use.

 

Comm. Haase asked the timeline for the Krause’s to resume business should all approvals be granted.

 

Ms. Stogsdill said the text amendment will go to City Commission on December 5th.  If approved, the ordinance will be drafted for first and second reading and can be published by the end of the week of the second reading.  The ordinance can potentially be drafted per Planning Commission recommendation and the Special Use Permit (SUP) could be submitted for consideration in at the December Planning Commission meeting.  The SUP would not go forward if the text amendment did not go forward.  Ms. Stogsdill stated the ordinance could be adopted by the December meeting, followed by the SUP being heard by the City Commission.  The best case scenario would be a mid-January implementation and there would need to be compliance with any conditions of approval before the SUP is fully implemented.

 

Comm. Eichhorn questioned whether bed and breakfast establishments would continue to be single family use in RS districts. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that bed and breakfasts are allowed in single family districts under the new code.

 

Comm. Harris asked why this use would not be allowed in RS3 and RM districts.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle stated the lots would be too small and neighborhoods too dense.

 

Ms. Day stated the City Commission discussion was pertaining to single family use.  Staff discussed adding it to multi-family districts and whether that would be an appropriate activity.  The City Commission initiated this action to RS zoning.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

Robert Krause, applicant, spoke to the issue of limiting hours of use.  He said he would prefer not to rush customers which would be a hardship on the type of service he would like to provide.  He suggested if the hours were limited, to make them reasonable and provided an example of 10:30 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. weekdays and 11:30 p.m. - 12:00 a.m. on weekends.  Mr. Krause stated the other pertinent issue is serving outside.  He said he does not wish to serve meals outside but would like to have the ability to greet guests and offer beverages and hors d’oeuvres outdoors.  Mr. Krause said he would like to follow the letter of the law but serving no food or beverages outside would be a hardship.  Mr. Krause also expressed gratitude for the time that has been spent in consideration of this request.

 

Comm. Burress asked what hours would be acceptable to Mr. Krause.

 

Mr. Krause replied that he would begin service around 6:30 p.m. on weeknights and allow approximately 3 hours for dinner.  The service does not always last that long; larger groups would take more time.  He stated the dinners are sedate and there is not a lot of noise.

 

Comm. Harkins said the language does not stipulate hours.  He commented that the language does indicate that all dispensing and consumption of beverages and food shall occur indoors.  Comm. Harkins suggested changing the language to stating “service of prepared meals shall occur indoors.”

 

STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS

Ms. Day stated the hours of operation are not part of the text amendment being considered at this meeting and the hours would be reviewed with each individual application.  In regards to consumption of food and beverages outdoors, the language choice is deliberate.  Ms. Day said that it should not be allowed to occur outside or if it occurs, there should be very dense material installed along property lines to absorb the sounds associated with the service.

 

Comm. Krebs stated the Planning Commission has discretion regarding screening.

 

Comm. Harkins pointed out that the neighboring house the Krause’s purchased is a buffer and that service of drinks on the patio seems like a reasonable request.

 

Comm. Erickson commented that the text amendment language is more general to apply to more than just this specific applicant and questioned whether this can be accomplished through an SUP.

Ms. Day stated the text amendment has been structured to allow that flexibility.

 

Ms. Stogsdill clarified that any SUP submitted for approval will be required to adhere to the same standards and may have additional conditions imposed. 

 

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Harris suggested restating the language to read that “the Planning Commission shall have the discretion to determine if all dispensation of food or beverages shall occur indoors.”

 

Comm. Haase said he found it troublesome to identify the Planning Commission as able to make recommendations for these restrictions.  He suggested the Planning Commission be silent on that issue and add recommendations as forwarded to the Commission for consideration.

 

Comm. Krebs stated Comm. Harris’ proposed text change could provide that language.  She asked if staff could modify the text to reword mixed use lots and outlined changes as:

·         1 (v) from: All dispensing and consumption of prepared foods and or beverages shall occur indoors to “Planning Commission shall have the discretion to determine if all dispensation of food and beverages shall occur indoors.”
·         1 (ix) from: The Planning Commission has the discretion to place additional restrictions upon the use or the site based upon the Review and Decision-Making Criteria set forth in Section 20-1306(i), including but not limited to hours of operation, lighting and noise to “The Planning Commission and City Commission have the discretion to place additional restrictions upon the use or the site based upon the Review and Decision-Making Criteria set forth in Section 20-1306(i), but shall not be precluded from consideration of other factors which may be relevant to a particular application including but not limited to hours of operation, lighting and noise.”

 

·         3 (ii) a from:  The use shall be contained in neighborhoods with a predominace of Mixed Use lots, tracts, parcels, or buildings or structures as the term mixed use is defined in Section 20-1701. Neighborhoods which are predominantly single-dwelling residential in nature shall not be considered for private dining uses to “use shall be contained within or adjacent to blocks with nonresidential uses in a neighborhood with mixed uses or zoning districts.”

 

·         3 (iii) a from: The Planning Commission shall have discretion to require landscaping and screening as deemed necessary given the operational,  neighborhood and site characteristics for the use as a condition of Special Use Permit approval to “The Planning Commission shall have discretion to require landscaping and screening as deemed necessary given the operational,  neighborhood and site characteristics for the use as a condition of Special Use Permit approval.”

 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Haase, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn, to forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-10-12-06] to Articles 4, 5, and 17 “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” to the City Commission with instructions given to Staff regarding changes to the verbiage in sections 1 (v), 1 (ix) and 3 (iii) a. 

 

20-539                 General Standards for Private Dining Establishments

(1)     The operation of a Private Dining Establishment in certain RS, RSO and RMO Districts shall be limited to

(i)      Service to no more than 30 guests per seating.
(ii)     One seating per service day.
(iii)     5 service days in a standard 7-day week.
(iv)    Service shall be provided to the general public by reservation only.
(v)     All dispensing and consumption of prepared foods and or beverages shall occur indoors.
(vi)    Shall be located in mixed-use neighborhoods.
(vii)    No drive-in, drive-through or carry-out facilities are permitted.
(viii)   The service of beverages may include alcoholic beverages subject to approval of a City Liquor License.
(ix)    The Planning Commission and City Commission has have the discretion to place additional restrictions upon the use or the site based upon the Review and Decision-Making Criteria set forth in Section 20-1306(i), but shall not be precluded from consideration of other factors which may be relevant to a particular application including but not limited to hours of operation, lighting and noise.

(2)     Off-street Parking

(i)      Principal Residential Use

Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of Article 9 of Chapter 20 of the Land Development Code for the primary use as a residence.

(ii)     Accessory Private Dining Use

The Planning Commission and City Commission shall have the discretion to adjust the amount of parking required and/or the permitted location and site design of off-street parking facilities dedicated to Private Dining uses as a condition of  Special Use Permit approval.

(iii)     Standards for the Location of Off-Street Parking

Off-street parking shall be provided in such a way as to maintain the residential pattern and character of the neighborhood in which the use is proposed to occur.

 

(3)     Site-Related Standards

(i)      Owner-Occupancy Required

A Private Dining use shall be accessory to an owner-occupied principal residential use.

(ii)     Location

a.      The use shall be contained in neighborhoods with a predominace of that include Mixed Use lots, tracts, parcels, or buildings or structures as the term mixed use is defined in Section 20-1701. Neighborhoods which are predominantly single-dwelling residential in nature shall not be considered for private dining uses.  The use shall be contained within or adjacent to blocks with nonresidential uses in a neighborhood with mixed uses or zoning districts.

b.      The Use shall have direct access to a pubic street or right-of-way. Use shall not be allowed on private streets.

The use shall be compatible with and maintain the character of the neighborhood.

(iii)     Screening

a.      The Planning Commission shall have discretion to require landscaping and screening as deemed necessary given the operational,  neighborhood and site characteristics for the use as a condition of Special Use Permit approval.

(iv)    Appearance

a.      The exterior of the residence shall remain consistent with the primary function as a dwelling unit.

b.      No exterior signage or advertising material permitted in residential districts.

(v)    Operating Characteristics

 

a.      The Planning Commission and City Commission shall have the discretion to determine if serving and consumption of any food and/or beverage may occur outdoors.

 

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Harris suggested alternate wording for 3 (ii)a:  “use shall be contained within or adjacent to blocks with nonresidential uses in a neighborhood with mixed uses or zoning districts.”

 

Comm. Harkins recommended that legal staff review the language prior to forwarding the changes to the City Commission.

 

Comm. Harris concurred.

 

 

 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-10-12-06] to Articles 4, 5, and 17 “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” to the City Commission with instructions given to Staff regarding changes to the verbiage in sections 1 (v), 1 (ix) and 3 (iii) a and as shown below:

 

20-539                 General Standards for Private Dining Establishments

(1)     The operation of a Private Dining Establishment in certain RS, RSO and RMO Districts shall be limited to

(i)      Service to no more than 30 guests per seating.
(ii)     One seating per service day.
(iii)     5 service days in a standard 7-day week.
(iv)    Service shall be provided to the general public by reservation only.
(v)     All dispensing and consumption of prepared foods and or beverages shall occur indoors.
(vi)    Shall be located in mixed-use neighborhoods.
(vii)    No drive-in, drive-through or carry-out facilities are permitted.
(viii)   The service of beverages may include alcoholic beverages subject to approval of a City Liquor License.
(ix)    The Planning Commission and City Commission has have the discretion to place additional restrictions upon the use or the site based upon the Review and Decision-Making Criteria set forth in Section 20-1306(i), but shall not be precluded from consideration of other factors which may be relevant to a particular application including but not limited to hours of operation, lighting and noise.

(2)     Off-street Parking

(i)      Principal Residential Use

Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of Article 9 of Chapter 20 of the Land Development Code for the primary use as a residence.

(ii)     Accessory Private Dining Use

The Planning Commission and City Commission shall have the discretion to adjust the amount of parking required and/or the permitted location and site design of off-street parking facilities dedicated to Private Dining uses as a condition of  Special Use Permit approval.

(iii)     Standards for the Location of Off-Street Parking

Off-street parking shall be provided in such a way as to maintain the residential pattern and character of the neighborhood in which the use is proposed to occur.

(3)     Site-Related Standards

(i)      Owner-Occupancy Required

A Private Dining use shall be accessory to an owner-occupied principal residential use.

(ii)     Location

a.      The use shall be contained in neighborhoods with a predominace of that include Mixed Use lots, tracts, parcels, or buildings or structures as the term mixed use is defined in Section 20-1701. Neighborhoods which are predominantly single-dwelling residential in nature shall not be considered for private dining uses.  The use shall be contained within or adjacent to blocks with nonresidential uses in a neighborhood with mixed uses or zoning districts.

b.      The Use shall have direct access to a pubic street or right-of-way. Use shall not be allowed on private streets.

The use shall be compatible with and maintain the character of the neighborhood.

(iii)     Screening

a.      The Planning Commission shall have discretion to require landscaping and screening as deemed necessary given the operational,  neighborhood and site characteristics for the use as a condition of Special Use Permit approval.

(iv)    Appearance

a.      The exterior of the residence shall remain consistent with the primary function as a dwelling unit.

b.      No exterior signage or advertising material permitted in residential districts.

(v)    Operating Characteristics

 

a.      The Planning Commission and City Commission shall have the discretion to determine if serving and consumption of any food and/or beverage may occur outdoors.

 

 

 

          Motion passed 9-0-1 with Comm. Finkeldei abstaining.

 

 

                        At this time the Commission moved to Item 10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 11/15/06

ITEM NO. 13:           AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE 7 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (SMS)

 

TA-11-13-06: Consider initiation of text amendments to Chapter 20, Article 7 Subdivision Regulations to correct and clarify the proposed regulations.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Stogsdill, Planning Staff, gave an introduction and overview of the initiation of the text amendment.  Ms. Stogsdill stated the need to take a closer look at inconsistencies and indicated two pages of areas outlined in the Staff Report that have been identified at this time.

 

Comm. Haase asked if the 10/18/06 draft contains the County Commission Recommendations.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied in the affirmative.

 

Comm. Haase questioned the language that included county subdivisions and if the Planning Commission would approve a plat that would then be sent to the City and County Commissions.  He stated he did not feel the changes in the platting section were reflective of recommendations and changes made by the committee and indicated a reluctance to vote in favor of initiation of the text amendment.

 

Ms. Stogsdill said the language proposed is close to what exists in the current subdivision regulations.  The platting language did not change and was not discussed; she said the language described are from the existing regulations.

 

Comm. Haase expressed a concern with conservation clusters and said the language seemed to indicate a subdivision could be located anywhere in the county both in and outside of the UGA.

 

Ms. Stogsdill stated the County Commission accepted many of the regulations recommended by the Planning Commission and also chose to modify several regulations.  They had issues with certain changes the Planning Commission recommended and made modifications based on their concerns.  Ms. Stogsdill said initiating this text amendment will assist the Commissions to begin the process of ensuring changes can be made prior to the adoption of the new subdivision regulations and that this will allow the Planning Commission to be a step ahead of where they were with the Development Code.

 

Comm. Burress asked Comm. Haase what he would like to see happen.

 

Comm. Haase replied that the Planning Commission has been invited to the 11/28 joint meeting and urged the Commissioners to make their arguments at that time.  He stated if the subdivision regulations are adopted as is, it would be worse that what is currently exists. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill requested that Comm. Haase identify the problematic sections of the subdivision regulations.

 

Comm. Haase said that the large parcel subdivision section does not exclude development outside the UGA.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that large parcel division is only allowed in the UGA and sections 804 and 805 specifically address what is allowed in the UGA.

 

Comm. Krebs expressed concerns that Comm. Haase’s line of questioning falls outside of the scope of the text amendment.  She said that there needs to be a determination of what the County Commissions recommendations are and what would be beneficial for the Planning Commission prior to the 11/28 joint meeting.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Harris, to initiate the proposed revisions [TA-11-13-06] to the City/County Subdivision Regulations for public hearing at a future Planning Commission meeting.

 

          Motion approved unanimously, 10-0.

 

                    Adjourn 10:15 p.m.