PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 18 & 20, 2006
Meeting Minutes
_______________________________________________________________________
December 18, 2006 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins, Harris and Krebs
Staff present: Stogsdill, Day, J. Miller, M. Miller, Pool, Rexwinkle and Brown
_______________________________________________________________________
MINUTES
Discussion regarding November 13 & 15, 2006 draft minutes -
Commissioner Haase suggested changing wording on page 31, paragraph 3, replacing “of” to “to” in the portion of the sentence “east to Louisiana.”
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the minutes of the November 13 & 15, 2006 meeting with discussed revisions.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner Erickson stated that the CDC had a pre-charrette meeting and encouraged Planners to attend as many meetings as possible during the charrette.
Commissioner Haase informed that the T2030 committee met and focused on adopting the land use map.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that RZC met and are still going through the process.
He also stated that during the PCCM they heard from ECO2 and are still waiting on the final product.
Commissioner Finkeldei advised that TAC met and discussed the upcoming Wednesday night items.
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 2 – PP for Midnight Farm; 2084 N 600 Rd
Item 4B – FDP for Lawrence Humane Society; 1805 E 19th St
Item 7 – Revisions to Article 19, County Zoning Regulations
Item 10 – Amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code
Item 13 – Rezoning from IG to IL; 5.252 Acres; 101 W McDonald Dr
· Letter from League of Women Voters
Item 14 – Rezoning from RS10 to RS5; .954 Acres; 523-543 Rockledge
· Letter from League of Women Voters
· Petition from neighbors
Item 15 – Amendment to Horizon 2020, Chapter 5-Residential Land Use
· Letter from League of Women Voters
Item 18 – Approve T2030 Future Land Use Map
Long Range Planning Draft Resolution Memo
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte
· Commissioner Finkeldei declared abstention from the Consent Agenda
· There were no deferral requests to consider
PC Minutes 12/18/06
ITEM NO. 1: FINAL PLAT FOR VIRGINIA INN ADDITION; 2907 W 6TH ST (MKM)
PF-11-30-06: Final Plat for Virginia Inn Addition. The two lot Commercial project is located at 2907 W. 6th Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Kenny Liu of Virginia Inn, Inc., property owner of record.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Krebs inquired to Ms. Stogsdill about item 1, asking if the location had been before the Planning Commission several years ago.
Ms. Stogsdill stated it had not been before the Planning Commission for several years.
Commissioner Krebs asked if the request was for a subdivision with a special variance?
Ms. Miller stated that the applicant would not get a variance for parking because they plan to split the parking agreement between the lots.
Commissioner Krebs asked if it was common to create a subdivision to share parking?
Ms. Miller stated that in the new code two lots can share the same common parking.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Haase to approve the Final Plat for Virginia Inn and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised Final Plat with the following changes:
a. A shared parking agreement, which has been approved by the Director of Legal Services, must be recorded and the Book and Page Number noted on the face of the plat.
b. Additional right-of-way dedicated along W 6th Street for a total of 50’.
c. A note added to the plat stating that the previously conforming structure on Lot 1 will encroach into the required front setback as a result of the additional right-of-way being required, but will not become a non-conforming structure per Section 20-1503 (a) of the Development Code.
d. List the radius for the existing access drive on W 6th Street.
e. The Minimum Elevation Building Opening (MEBO) must be listed for Lot 2.
2. Execution of an encroachment agreement with the City of Lawrence for the parking Lot on Lot 2 which is located in the right-of-way.
3. Submittal of sidewalk plans for the City Engineer’s approval.
4. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-103 of the Subdivision Regulations.
5. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
6. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
b. Provision of a completed Master Street Tree Plan in accordance with Section 21-708.3 of the Subdivision Regulations.
Motion carried 7-0-1, as part of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Finkeldei abstaining.
PC Minutes 12/18/06
ITEM NO. 2: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MIDNIGHT FARM; 2084 N 600 RD (LAP)
PP-11-16-06: Preliminary Plat of Midnight Farm, located at 2084 N 600 Road. This proposed residential living facility contains approximately 40.52 acres. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Community Living Opportunities, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Haase to approve the Preliminary Plat for Midnight Farm based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Revision of the plat to include the following:
a) Notation for all new septic systems as follows: “1,000 gallon septic tank (Typical – Location Approximate)”, and “7,500 s.f. or 14,400 s.f. lateral field (Typical – Location Approximate).”
b) Notation stating that the owner/developer hereby agrees to annex the subject property into the City of Lawrence at such time the Lawrence City limits become contiguous with the subject property.
c) Revision of the future lot lines to reflect one lot for each home site, resulting in a total of 4 future lots.
d) Notation stating that domestic water service will be provided via Rural Water District #4.
Motion carried 7-0-1, as part of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Finkeldei abstaining.
PC Minutes 12/18/06
ITEM NO. 3A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR UNITARIAN FELLOWSHIP OF LAWRENCE; 1263 N 1100 RD (JCR)
PP-11-17-06: Preliminary Plat for Unitarian Fellowship of Lawrence. This 2.47 acre lot
is located at 1263 N 1100 Road. Submitted by Grob Engineering Services, LLC, for
Unitarian Fellowship of Lawrence, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Haase to approve the Preliminary Plat for Unitarian Fellowship of Lawrence based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried 7-0-1, as part of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Finkeldei abstaining.
PC Minutes 12/18/06
ITEM NO. 3B: FINAL PLAT FOR UNITARIAN FELLOWSHIP OF LAWRENCE; 1263 N 1100 RD (JCR)
PF-11-31-06: Final Plat for Unitarian Fellowship of Lawrence. This 2.47 acre lot is located at
1263 N 1100 Road. Submitted by Grob Engineering Services, LLC, for Unitarian Fellowship of
Lawrence, property owner of record.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress asked if Item 3, the Unitarian Church development, will be creating new land that will be unplatted?
Ms. Sheila Stogsdill replied no, none of the property was platted.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Haase to approve the Final Plat for the Unitarian Fellowship of Lawrence and forward to the County Commission for acceptance of right-of-way, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and documentation:
a. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
Motion carried 7-0-1, as part of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Finkeldei abstaining.
PC Minutes 12/18/06
ITEM NO. 4A: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LAWRENCE HUMANE SOCIETY; 1805 E 19TH ST (SLD)
PDP-11-10-06: Preliminary Development Plan for Lawrence Humane Society. The property is located at 1805 E 19th Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Lawrence Humane Society, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Sandra Day introduced the item and described the proposed improvements and the requested reduction in the peripheral boundary setback on the east side.
Planning staff recommended approval of the revised Preliminary Development Plan 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 condition:
1. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for street and sidewalk improvements to E. 19th Street.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, supported staff’s recommendation.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Applicant had no closing comments.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for the Lawrence Humane Society and forward to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the condition stated above.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
PC Minutes 12/18/06
ITEM NO. 4B: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LAWRENCE HUMANE SOCIETY; 1805 E 19TH ST (SLD)
FDP-11-07-06: Final Development Plan for Lawrence Humane Society. The property is located at 1805 E 19th Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Lawrence Humane Society, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Sandra Day introduced the item and summarized the recommendation.
Staff recommended approval of the Final Development Plan for Lawrence Humane Society, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and documentation:
a. A Site Plan Performance Agreement.
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
c. Recordation at the Register of Deeds’ Office of an
updated copy of the covenants governing maintenance of all common space, with
the Book and Page number noted on the plan and a copy of the document provided
to the Planning Office.
2. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to add the use groups to the face of the document and include the reference to the Zoning Code pre-July 1, 2006.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei to approve the Final Development Plan for the Lawrence Humane Society based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the conditions stated above.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
PC Minutes 12/18/06
ITEM NO. 5: A TO A-1; 39.67 ACRES; 671 N 1550 RD (LAP)
Z-11-29-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 39.67 acres, from A (Agricultural) to A-1 (Suburban Home Residential District). The property is located at 671 N 1550 Road. Submitted by Bruce and Cynthia Byers, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Lisa Pool introduced the item and summarized the recommendation.
Staff recommended approval of rezoning 39.67 acres from the A District to the A-1 District and forwarding it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning resolution.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
No applicant presentation.
Commissioner Burress inquired how many residences could be put on the property.
Ms. Pool stated that the applicant is proposing three lots. They could have up to 8.
(40 acres at 5 acres each=8 lots)
PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Alexander Platnikov, owns property to the west, wanted to know how this would effect the neighboring property. He felt that single-family homes would increase traffic.
Commissioner Krebs stated that under the current regulations the land could be divided into eight lots with eight homes, which would be the maximum density.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress asked Mr. Platnikov what he does with his property.
Mr. Platnikov responded that he plans to build one house.
Commissioner Burress asked if Mr. Platnikov did any farming on his land.
Mr. Platnikov replied no, just wants to raise his family there.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei to recommend approval of the rezoning of 671 N 1550 Road and forwarding it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the condition stated above.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
PC Minutes 12/18/06
ITEM NO. 6: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; 2142 N 300 RD (MKM)
CUP-10-08-06: Conditional Use Permit for a light aircraft landing strip at 2142 N 300 Road. Submitted by Ray Vallejo, for Justin Johnson, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Mary Miller introduced the item and summarized the recommendation.
Staff recommended denial of a Conditional Use Permit for a private landing strip and forwarding of it to the County Commission with a recommendation for denial, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report.
If the County Commission chooses to recommend approval of the Condition Use Permit, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1) Provision of a revised site plan to include the following notes:
a) “The permit will be administratively reviewed by the County in 5 years (December 20, 2011).”
b) “The permit will expire at the end of 10 years (December 20, 2016), unless an application for renewal is approved prior to that date by the local governing body.”
c) “The airstrip is for the private use of the property owner only and restricted to the airplane registered to the applicant and may not be used for commercial purposes.”
d) Fencing provided along east property line to separate structure from runway.
2) Provision of a copy of the Federal Aviation Administration determination of approval for the airstrip resulting from the review required under FAA Regulation 14CFR Part 157 (FAA Form 7480-1) to the Planning Department.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Curtis Holland, attorney for applicants Justin & Penny Johnson, stated that Mr. Johnson’s hobby is aviation and currently has a plane in a hanger in Johnson County. Mr. Johnson developed the 150 acre area and designed it for the airstrip. Mr. Holland presented aerial photos of other air strips in the area to show the proximity of the airstrip to other structures is relatively common.
Mr. Holland went on to say that Mr. Johnson developed the area and built the homes around it. Several home owners in the area that are most affected by the air strip signed a petition in support of the air strip.
Mr. Justin Johnson, property owner, stated that he purchased the property with the intention of having the airstrip. He contacted everyone in the area and got support from everyone. On average, he only flies once a month and has a lightweight aircraft that he feels is very safe. He designed the entire area with the airstrip in mind.
Commissioner Harris asked staff if the presence of an airstrip in the area will prevent neighbors from developing?
Ms. Miller replied, not that she was aware of, unless the FAA had restrictions.
Mr. Johnson stated that he owned the surrounding property.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked why a CUP was not obtained before the landing strip was constructed.
Mr. Johnson responded that he did not realize a CUP was required.
Commissioner Burress stated that private aviation was more dangerous than commercial and the danger was usually during takeoff or landing. He wanted to know how many crashes annually there were for private flyers.
Mr. Johnson stated that it is fairly rare for a plane to hit a home but that in most cases it is only the pilot that dies and nobody on the ground is usually hurt.
Commissioner Harkins asked Mr. Johnson what type of aircraft he uses.
Mr. Johnson responded that he owns a Beechcraft Bonanza and has landed it on his airstrip several times already.
Commissioner Burress asked if there was a kink in the driveway and how much it would cost to move it because it is within eleven feet of the property line.
Mr. Johnson replied that it would be a pain to move the driveway but it would be possible for him to buy the property next to the airstrip.
Commissioner Harkins asked Mr. Johnson if he decided to request the CUP on his own or was he doing it because he was subject to some sort of enforcement?
Mr. Johnson stated that a code official sent him a letter saying he had to have a CUP and he applied for it the very next day.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Charles Tippie, aviation enthusiast and Overland Park Police Pilot, stated that flying is very safe for people on the ground and homes. He went on to say that if an aircraft strikes something on the ground it is usually airport equipment. He contacted James Charleston, insurer for Johnson County, and he said that homeowners insurance does not require it to be included.
Commissioner Eichhorn pointed out that the airstrip is located within eleven feet of the property line at one part of the property and that the neighboring property owner could legally build within twenty five feet of that boundary line.
Mr. Tippie said that he would not feel safe landing there but that he could not imagine a home owner wanting to build right there.
Commissioner Eichhorn agreed that he did not see someone wanting to build at that location of the property but that it would be possible.
Commissioner Burress stated that there is one accident per pilot for every 200,000 hours of flight time. He asked Mr. Johnson how many hours he operates per year?
Mr. Johnson replied that he operates his plane about 100 hours per year.
Mr. Ron Keplinger, owns the property which lies within eleven feet of the airstrip, and he said he would be more then happy to work out something for Mr. Johnson to buy that part of his property.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Mr. Keplinger how many acres he owns on the property.
Mr. Keplinger replied, twelve acres.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked Mr. Keplinger if he knew about the airstrip when he built his house?
Mr. Keplinger responded, yes.
Mr. James Kiely, landowner of neighboring property, stated that he has not yet built his house yet but that he has no problem with the airstrip.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked Mr. Kiely if he knew about the airstrip when he bought his property?
Mr. Kiely replied, yes.
Ms. Sharron Kiely, landowner of neighboring property, and she considers the airstrip to be an asset.
Commissioner Burress asked how the airstrip would be an asset?
Ms. Kiely stated that she feels the airstrip is an asset in case of a medical emergency.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Holland said that from the pictures he has shown and the testimony from neighbors they feel it is a safe airstrip. He went on to say that the Johnson’s did not know that they needed a CUP and once they found out they immediately applied for one. He also wanted to discuss condition stipulations 1C and 2D. Mr. Holland stated that Mr. Johnson was the only person presently who had an airplane, but it could be possible in the future for the neighbors to want to use the airstrip. He would rather talk about limiting the amount of uses per month because there might be an occasion where someone would want to land there and fencing would be an additional obstacle.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Ms. Miller stated that the fence was a suggestion by Keith Dabney, Director of Zoning & Codes, to insure buildings on neighboring properties would not become hangers.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the Planning Commission can expect a flood more of Conditional Use Permits for airstrips as it was pointed out that many existing airstrips may not have Conditional Use Permits.
Ms. Miller replied that it could be possible.
Commissioner Harris asked the applicant if it would be possible for more than one plane to be stored at the location.
Mr. Johnson responded that he only has one plane there currently.
Mr. Holland stated that he would rather have a condition to amend the CUP for other users, rather than build a fence.
Commissioner Burress wanted to know what the minimum clearance for the airstrip should be.
Mr. Tippie stated that he would not feel comfortable landing with less than a 25 foot clearance but that the pilot should be the judge of how much clearance they need.
Mr. Holland stated that the airstrip is as wide as a football field.
Ms. Miller said that when she looked at the FAA website they had a chart with clearance footage based on the type of plane.
Commissioner Burress asked if the fence would keep things off of the runway?
Ms. Stogsdill replied, no.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Haase said he was aware of a subdivision in Lincoln, Nebraska that surrounds a runway. He did not think the Commission should be concerned about limiting the number of private aircrafts using the landing strip since all of the neighbors were in support of it. He went on to say that the safety issues were minimal.
Commissioner Burress felt there should be a minimal footage limit to structures being built near the airstrip and he would like to add a condition stating that or defer the item until the Commission gets more safety answers.
Commissioner Eichhorn pointed out that the Commission had heard that 25 feet would be an acceptable distance.
Commissioner Finkeldei agreed with Commissioner Haase’s statements and that if the neighbors did not have a problem with the airstrip he would vote in favor of the CUP.
Commissioner Haase stated that the safety issue was the primary reason for staff denial but the testimony was expressed that safety was not an issue and the neighbors were in support.
Commissioner Burress stated that he would not vote for something that puts a runway within eleven feet of a property.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Erickson to approve the Conditional Use Permit for 2142 N 300 Road and forward it to the County Commission for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1) Provision of a revised site plan to include the following notes:
a) “The permit will be administratively reviewed by the County in 5 years (December 20, 2011).”
b)“The permit will expire at the end of 10 years (December 20, 2016), unless an application for renewal is approved prior to that date by the local governing body.”
c)“The
airstrip is for private use of the property owner only and restricted to the
airplane registered to the applicant and may not be used for commercial
purposes.”
d)
Fencing provided along east property line to separate structure from runway.
2) Provision of a copy of the Federal Aviation Administration determination of approval for the airstrip resulting from the review required under FAA Regulation 14CFR Part 157 (FAA Form 7480-1) to the Planning Department.
Motion carried, 6-2 with Commissioners Eichhorn, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harris, and Krebs in favor and Commissioners Harkins and Burress in opposition.
PC Minutes 12/18/06
ITEM NO. 7: REVISIONS TO ARTICLE 19, COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS
TA-08-08-06: Revisions to Article 19 of the Douglas County Zoning Regulations to add
self-storage to the list of permitted Conditional Uses and to create standards for the
development of this use in limited areas within the Urban Growth Area. (Initiated by the
Planning Commission at their August meeting.)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Mary Miller introduced the item and summarized the recommendation.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-08-08-06] to Article 19 of the Douglas County Zoning Regulations and forward them to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for adoption.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
(The Planning Commission is the actual applicant)
Mr. Tim Herndon stated that the reason the TA is important to his group is because this ground was purchased with the purpose of redevelopment. The mini storage proposal that Mr. Herndon is working on with a future applicant is appropriate for commercial use, would be low-impact, and have a low demand on infrastructure. He recommended that reference to the International Fire Code (IFC) be removed from condition 5 because it has not been adopted by the County. He would prefer that the parking calculation be based on the number of storage units because driveways serve as parking near the storage units. Mr. Herndon went on to say that he feels that exterior covered storage should include trailers, trucks, automobiles, and RV’s.
Commissioner Burress asked staff to respond to the proposed changes.
Ms. Miller responded by saying that several counties that she talked to did not have parking requirements and they regretted it. She stated that wording to allow trailers may be appropriate.
Commissioner Burress asked staff what was wrong with storing commercial vehicles and why would the Commission care?
Ms. Stogsdill stated that the previous City Zoning Ordinance had required minimum widths of 25’ for two-way access way and 20’ for one-way.
Ms. Miller responded that storing of commercial or industrial vehicles could lead to an increase in traffic.
Commissioner Eichhorn expressed his concern about dumpsters and thanked Mr. Herndon for mentioning the IFC Standards.
Commissioner Krebs inquired to Mr. Herndon about the size of the storage units.
Mr. Herndon replied that they range from 5’x5’ spaces to larger units that are 10’ wide and 30’ deep. He also stated that there are exterior storage units like pole barns. The deep storage units could allow a truck or RV.
Commissioner Harris asked for clarification on units being divided.
Ms. Miller stated that dividers could be used to divide one unit into smaller units.
Mr. Herndon stated that the vendor would have pre-partitions delivered. He also stated that he has never seen any mini-storage unit have parking issues.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
No applicant closing comments.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
No staff closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Finkeldei moved to approve the proposed text amendment base on findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following revised conditions:
· Strike reference to IFC Standards in condition 5 – change the width to 20’ minimum for one-way traffic to 25’ minimum for two-way
· Leave condition 6 as it is.
· Change condition 7 to include trucks, trailers and automobiles.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the word truck meant commercial or smaller size?
Commissioner Finkeldei said he was trying to modify it to recreational automobile.
Commissioner Erickson asked if when Commissioner Finkeldei said to leave #6 the way it was did he mean the square footage?
Commissioner Finkeldei said yes, leave it with the square footage.
Commissioner Krebs stated that the intent of the amendment was clear and that staff could finish the wording based on the Planning Commissions recommendation.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the TA language as presented in the memo and forward to the County Commission with the following changes:
#5 Strike the term “international fire code standards” and replace with “access way width must be a minimum of 20 feet for one-way and 25 feet for two-way”
#7 Revised condition 7 to include covered storage and permit storage of other ‘non-commercial’ vehicles
Motion carried, 7-0-1 with Commissioner Burress abstaining.
PC Minutes 12/18/06
ITEM NO. 8: AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 3 & 5, COUNTY ZONING REGUATIONS (SMS)
TA-08-07-06: Amendments to Articles 3 & 5 of the County Zoning Regulations regarding the definition of lot width and the establishment of setbacks along roads based upon road classification. [Revisions associated with proposed rural development regulations.]
Item 8 was deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 12/18/06
ITEM NO. 9: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE 7 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (SMS)
TA-11-13-06: Consider amendments to Chapter 20, Article 7 Subdivision Regulations to correct and clarify the proposed regulations. Initiated by the Planning Commission at their November meeting.
Item 9 was deferred prior to the meeting.
Commissioner Eichhorn left the meeting at 8:40p.m.
PC Minutes 12/18/06
ITEM NO. 10: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-10-11-06: Consider amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted. (Initiated by the Planning Commission at their November meeting.)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle introduced the item and summarized the recommendation.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-10-11-06] to Articles 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 17 of the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” to the City Commission.
Commissioner Harkins wanted to know if the TA recommendations had all been signed off on by the city attorneys.
Mr. John Miller said that they have reviewed it but they can provide additional scrutiny if needed.
Commissioner Harkins said he would feel more comfortable with an attorney reviewing them first.
Commissioner Erickson stated that on page 10, Standard (3) it says outdoor dining use and she wanted to know why two districts (CD and CN1) were specifically called out instead of saying just outdoor dining?
Mr. Rexwinkle said that it was possible commercial uses, in that district could be located in close proximity to a residence. In more intense commercial zoning districts there would not be that issue.
Commissioner Krebs stated that the clause following this list of districts is about the increase in parking which should just define the other outdoor dining uses.
Mr. Rexwinkle said that they were trying to be consistent.
Commissioner Krebs requested to add a comma after “districts.”
Commissioner Erickson requested a change be made on page 6 footnote (9) “elsewhere” should not be capitalized. On page 11 (2) the sentence ends with “or.” Also on page 14 where the strikeout of “construction of” is at it should include “buildings.”
Commissioner Haase inquired about guidance for determining Commercial Design Standards.
Mr. Rexwinkle stated that if it is just a change in use to a less intensive then it would not require more then a minor site plan review.
Commissioner Haase asked if when this type of situation comes up, would there have to be compliance with Commercial Design Standards?
Mr. Rexwinkle said he thought there was a Text Amendment that was passed recently striking color from the list of changes that would require site planning.
Commissioner Haase stated that it violated what the Commercial Design Guidelines committee wanted to have in place for standards and that the code is not sufficient to prevent someone from painting their business red.
Commissioner Krebs wanted to know if minor site plans fell under Commercial Design Standards.
Commissioner Haase replied, yes and that the intent was to prevent certain acts, like a business being painted bright red. He gave the example of a business on 23rd street that had gravel driveways and if they want to do interior remodeling they would have to bring the entire site up to code. Commissioner Haase felt that this prevents people from doing updates to their property but also wants to prevent people from painting their business red.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that the Planning Commission already struck color from the code when it was adopted.
Commissioner Finkeldei suggested on page 11 on top (3) where it says “minor modification…” to be modified to say “minor site plan.”
Mr. Rexwinkle stated that if there is no existing site plan on file then a standard site plan would be needed for minor changes. A minor site plan can only be done when there is an existing site plan on file.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated on page 11 (3A) the word “shall” be replaced with “are eligible” because (3A) should be consistent with 2. On page 31 the word “significantly” is used twice.
Commissioner Burress said he had the same reaction that the League of Women Voters did that the eligibility sections were hard to read. The way it is written would be hard to read for an outsider.
Commissioner Krebs asked Commissioner Burress if he had specific suggestions for changes?
Commissioner Burress replied no, he just wanted staff to reword things to make it simple to read.
Commissioner Harris stated that a builder should not have to get a permit to paint their building.
Commissioner Haase said that it was a very difficult regulation to implement but that there may be a need for something else besides site plans within commercial districts.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the Commission was delegating staff to clean up the wordage so that they would not have to see this again?
Commissioner Krebs replied, correct.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve TA-10-11-06 and forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions to Articles 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 17 of the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” to the City Commission.
Motion unanimously carried 7-0. (Commissioner Eichhorn left the meeting at 8:40pm)
PC Minutes 12/18/06
ITEM NO. 11: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-12-14-06: Consider initiation of amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle introduced the item and summarized the recommendation.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission initiate the proposed revisions [TA-12-14-06] to the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” for public hearing at the January 2007 Planning Commission meeting.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei to initiate text amendment
TA-12-14-06 for future public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
PC Minutes 12/18/06
MISC. ITEM NO. 1:
Ms. Sheila Stogsdill reported that last week at the City Commission meeting, the 6th & Aberdeen project was referred back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will see this item at the January Planning Commission meeting. It is being sent back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. The City Commission would like for the Planning Commission to reaffirm their recommendation, modify their recommendation, or take no action. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the item.
Commissioner Burress asked if the City Commission took action.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that the City Commission did not take action on the development plan but the Planning Commission will be provided with the minutes which contain a summary of two hours of discussion to consider.
MISC. ITEM NO. 2:
Ms. Stogsdill stated that the Subdivision Regulations and Comprehensive Regulations are on the City Commission agenda tomorrow night.
Consideration of any other business to come before the Commission:
Commissioner Harkins stated that the Federal Highway Administration held an open house for the 32nd Street alignment of the South Lawrence Trafficway and wondered if the MPO should make comments.
Commissioner Harris felt it would be appropriate for the MPO to submit comments. The recommendation would be not to have the 32nd Street alignment for a bypass and improve 31st Street instead.
Commissioner Haase felt the Federal Highway had made an error by limiting the discussion to only two alternate routes (32nd Street and 42nd Street) and have increased the probably of a lawsuit.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated that the suggested Eastern Bypass would not be financially feasible.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the MPO was on record of opposing the alignment?
Commissioner Harris replied, yes.
Commissioner Harkins suggested that the MPO reaffirm their opposition to the 32nd Street alignment.
Commissioner Haase said that Commissioner Harkins made a good point and thinks a motion to reaffirm their position is a good idea.
Commissioner Harkins stated that the T2030 process could identify an alternative to the 32nd Street alignment and he would like public comment on the alternative.
Commissioner Krebs asked if they could get a copy of their Planning Commission comments from the May meeting.
Ms. Stogsdill advised the Planning Commission that staff will provide a copy of the May minutes and the letter that was sent.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated that Item 18 for Wednesday night includes a project that is unfunded and should be removed from the TIP. Currently there is no money behind it and they can not keep it on the TIP because the TIP is not a wish list.
Commissioner Harkins expressed his concern that the basic premise for the item sounded like something that was written 20 years ago. He was concerned that the City had changed so much since the project was conceived.
Commissioner Haase stated that in 1975 the City adopted their first plan when the SLT was conceived. It was sold with the notion that it would relieve the traffic on 23rd Street but KDOT has stated that it would not relieve traffic.
Commissioner Haase said that freeways isolate areas from development and if a freeway is not needed then it should not be built.
Commissioner Harris pointed out that January 5th was the deadline for comments.
Commissioner Krebs said that the Commission could discuss the issue further on Wednesday evening.
Recess at 9:35pm
Recess until 6:30 P.M. on December 20, 2006
PC Minutes 12/20/06
_______________________________________________________________________
Reconvene December 20, 2006 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins, Harris and Krebs
Staff present: Stogsdill, Day, Leininger, J. Miller, M. Miller, Warner and Brown
_______________________________________________________________________
BEGIN PUBLIC HEARING (DECEMBER 20, 2006):
COMMUNICATIONS
APA’s 2007 National Planning Conference April 14-18, 2007
MPO Letter to Wendall Meyer
May PC Minutes – EIS for the South Lawrence Trafficway
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte
· Commissioner Finkeldei declared abstention from Item 12
· There were no deferral requests to consider
PC Minutes 12/20/06
ITEM NO. 12: SPECIAL USE PERMIT; 917 DELAWARE (SLD)
SUP-10-04-06: Special Use Permit for Krause Dining at 917 Delaware. Submitted by Winton A. Winter Jr., Stevens & Brand LLP, for Robert & Molly Krause, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Sandra Day introduced the item and summarized the recommendation.
Planning Staff recommended approval of SUP-10-04-06, a Special Use Permit for a private dining restaurant located at 917 Delaware and forwarding of it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings presented in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement.
2. Completion of conditions of approval and release of a permit from the Historic Resources Administrator prior to the release of a site plan for the issuance of a building permit.
3. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following notes:
a. Service to no more than 30 guests per seating;
b. One seating per service day;
c. 5 service days in a standard 7-day week;
d. Service shall be provided to the general public by reservation only;
e. Drive-in and carry-out facilities are prohibited;
f. Private dining shall be an accessory use to an owner occupied principal residence.
g. No serving and consumption of any food and/or beverage may occur outdoors.
h. Activity shall conclude by 11:00 P.M. on weekdays and by 12:00 P.M. Friday and Saturday night.
i. Outside lighting associated with private dining events is extinguished by 11:00 P.M. on weekdays and by 12:00 Friday and Saturday night.
j. There shall be compliance with applicable building code requirements.
k. If the owner/operators of the private dining facility change in the future then a new Special Use Permit shall be required.
l. Property shall be inspected annually by City Staff for compliance with the Special Use Permit.
m. Owner/Operator shall submit an annual report prior to the scheduled yearly inspection stating they are the owner of record of the property and demonstrating compliance with the conditions of approval.
n. Note the Deed Book and Page reference of the executed off-street parking agreement on the face of the site plan.
4. Provision of a revised site plan to provide additional landscape material added along the existing fence per staff approval. Material may be a mixture of installed plants or containers to provide additional buffering.
5. Approval of a City liquor license if alcoholic beverages are proposed.
6. Execution and recording of an off-street parking agreement with the Register of Deeds Office to include parking on an approved site planned property.
7. Publication of an ordinance per section 20-1306 (j).
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Wint Winter, attorney on behalf of Robert and Molly Krause, stated that the Krause’s were not present at the meeting due to work conflicts. He requested the Commission revise staff’s condition 3(g) to the language of “No service of full meals may occur outdoors. Limited service of food and beverage accessory to the main meal service such as appetizers is allowed outdoors.”
Commissioner Harkins asked if the Krause’s had purchased the house next door yet?
Mr. Winter stated that the Krause’s were still in the process of buying the property next door.
Ms. Day said that staff had not been involved in the purchasing of the property next door. The agreement had been between the Krause’s and the neighbor.
Commissioner Burress wanted neighborhood feedback on condition 3(g).
Mr. Winter stated that Scott Voelker was in the audience to give details of the Site Plan if needed.
PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. K.T. Walsh, speaking as individual, did not support having dining and drinking outside because of it being in a residential area.
Ms. Dayna Carleton, lives in the East Lawrence neighborhood, and she believes that restaurants will pop up more in the neighborhood because of this SUP.
Commissioner Burress stated that there are very restricted conditions to the SUP and asked if she felt it would lead to serious issues?
Ms. Carleton said she was talking about the whole procedure and that she feels people are being rewarded for breaking the law.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Winter reiterated that they would like for condition 3(g) be changed to what he suggested earlier. He also stated that there will be limited outdoor service and that the plan is to purchase the property next door.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Haase said that he has dined at the Krause’s and did not feel that the outside use would be problematic.
Commissioner Burress stated that he would have supported it had a neighbor not been opposed. He also pointed out that it did operate there for a while without any complaints.
Commissioner Harris said she was having a hard time deciding since it was very close to another building. She was concerned about people gathering and visiting outside.
Commissioner Harkins stated that the ambiance includes exterior areas and people might gather outside to have a cocktail or enjoy nice weather. He also said that since the Krause’s went to the trouble of buying the property next door he was not too concerned.
Commissioner Erickson said that she remembered most of the neighbors being in support of the SUP.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that he was conflicted on the issue and said that having cocktails outside would not be as loud as the industrial business in the area.
Commissioner Burress stated that he would support the SUP but his concern was about creating a precedence. The business operated illegally and did not create any complaints.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harkins, seconded by Commissioner Haase to modify the staff report condition 3(g) to the following:
“No service of full meals may occur outdoors. Limited service of food and beverage accessory to the main meal service such as appetizers is allowed outdoors.”
Motion carried 6-1-1, with Commissioner Haase in opposition and Commissioner Finkeldei abstaining.
Motion by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Eichhorn, to approve SUP-10-04-06, a Special Use Permit for a private dining restaurant located at 917 Delaware and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings presented in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement.
2. Completion of conditions of approval and release of a permit from the Historic Resources
Administrator prior to the release of a site plan for the issuance of a building permit.
3. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following notes:
a. Service to no more than 30 guests per seating;
b. One seating per service day;
c. 5 service days in a standard 7-day week;
d. Service shall be provided to the general public by reservation only;
e. Drive-in and carry-out facilities are prohibited;
f. Private dining shall be an accessory use to an owner occupied principal residence.
g. No service of full meals may occur outdoors. Limited service of food and beverage accessory to the main meal service such as appetizers is allowed outdoors.
h. Activity shall conclude by 11:00 P.M. on weekdays and by 12:00 P.M. Friday and Saturday night.
i. Outside lighting associated with private dining events is extinguished by 11:00 P.M. on weekdays and by 12:00 Friday and Saturday night.
j. There shall be compliance with applicable building code requirements.
k. If the owner/operators of the private dining facility change in the future then a new Special Use Permit shall be required.
l. Property shall be inspected annually by City Staff for compliance with the Special Use Permit.
m. Owner/Operator shall submit an annual report prior to the scheduled yearly inspection stating they are the owner of record of the property and demonstrating compliance with the conditions of approval.
n. Note the Deed Book and Page reference of the executed off-street parking agreement on the face of the site plan.
4. Provision of a revised site plan to provide additional landscape material added along the existing
fence per staff approval. Material may be a mixture of installed plants or containers to provide
additional buffering.
5. Approval of a City liquor license if alcoholic beverages are proposed.
6. Execution and recording of an off-street parking agreement with the Register of Deeds Office to
include parking on an approved site planned property.
7. Publication of an ordinance per section 20-1306 (j).
Motion
carried 7-0-1, with Commissioner Finkeldei abstaining.
PC Minutes 12/20/06
ITEM NO. 13: IG to IL; 5.252 ACRES; 101 W MCDONALD DR (SLD/MKM)
Z-11-27-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 5.252 acres, from IG (General Industrial) to IL (Limited Industrial). The property is located at 101 W McDonald Drive. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for Hallmark Cards, Inc., property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Sandra Day introduced the item and summarized the recommendation.
Staff recommended denial of the 5.252 acres from IG (General Industrial) to IL (Limited Industrial) District based on the findings presented in the staff report and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Paul Werner, with Paul Werner Architects, stated he was disappointed when he got the staff report recommending denial. He went on to say that it would still be industrial zoning but would allow more uses. The entire project is not going to be commercial. Hallmark has stated several times that they do not intend to expand their building on the south side due to a large drainage easement. They have plenty of ground to the North to expand if needed. The IL zoning would still allow for several less intensive uses. There is the potential for some commercial use on that area. Smaller commercial development would be appropriate. The one advantage of someone working on this site is that it would improve the intersection of Princeton and North Iowa. Mr. Werner would like for the Planning Commission to consider his proposal. He feels that IL zoning was meant for this site since it is a less intense development.
Commissioner Haase stated that he thought the level of service is F at the intersection of Princeton and North Iowa.
Ms. Day said that staff was aware of the difficulties of that intersection.
Commissioner Burress asked staff what they thought that corner would be good for.
Ms. Day stated that there would be access problems regardless of the use. Drainage easements would push buildings to Princeton or North Iowa. She said there were a number of things that should be studied.
Commissioner Burress asked if multi-family uses could go at that location?
Ms. Day stated that multi-family would also take a change in zoning.
Commissioner Krebs asked where would access to the site be allowed?
Ms. Day responded that there are too many variables to say at this time.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Mr. Werner if when the property was purchased was it purchased in conjunction with the other property?
Mr. Werner replied, yes.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Mr. Werner if IL zoning was available at the time of purchase?
Mr. Werner stated that IG came from the conversion and that they have not purchased it yet.
Commissioner Burress pointed out that there was a letter from the League of Women Voters suggesting they should get rid of the IL District. Commissioner Burress wanted to know if that made any sense?
Ms. Day said it may be appropriate to go back and revisit what is allowed in IL. It makes sense to have more than one industrial district, one with more intensive and one with less intensive uses.
Commissioner Harkins asked staff to give a compelling reason to deny the rezoning.
Ms. Day said the primary reason were the policies spelled out in Horizon 2020 regarding the commercial uses allowed at this location.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Werner stated that the majority of the staff report was based on whether we are taking away IL uses. He said that they have talked with the turnpike authority and he believes they can improve the access issues. He went on to say that Hallmark wanted no part of a shared access on that side and that they have two access points at their entry which could be improved. He feels it would work with the project because it would get people out of traffic sooner and improve the area. He said they would need to do a large traffic study.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Krebs asked Mr. Werner what type of commercial development he saw going in at that location?
Mr. Werner responded a convenience store was the first one in mind but that there was the potential for the Fritzel’s to move their shop to this location.
Commissioner Haase said he was reluctant to tell Hallmark no unless he has a very good reason. He thinks that development of that site would lead to improvements to the roadway. He said that Hallmark was one of the City’s major businesses and he would have to have pretty strong reasons to say no.
Commissioner Krebs said that changing the zoning before the Commission knows what is going to go on the site makes it difficult for her to decide which way to vote.
Commissioner Burress stated that the Commission should not base their decision on the character of the land owner. He does not buy the idea that every entrance to Lawrence has to have commercial zoning.
Commissioner Haase said he respected Commissioner Burress and Commissioner Krebs’ views but that he stands by his observations.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to recommend denial of the 5.252 acres from IG (General Industrial) to IL (Limited Industrial) District based on the findings presented in the staff report and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial.
Motion carried 5-3, with Commissioners Burress, Erickson, Eichhorn, Harris and Krebs in favor. Commissioners Finkeldei, Haase and Harkins opposed.
PC Minutes 12/20/06
ITEM NO. 14: RS10 TO RS5; .954 ACRES; 523-543 ROCKLEDGE (MKM)
Z-11-28-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately .954 acres, from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) to RS5 (Single-Dwelling Residential). The property is located at 523-543 Rockledge. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for LC Anuff, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Mary Miller introduced the item and summarized the recommendation.
Staff recommended approval of the approximately .954 acres from RS10 (Single-dwelling Residential) District to RS5 (Single-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 conditions:
1. Staff recommends conditioned zoning to ensure the development will be compatible with existing, established, neighborhood along Rockledge Road;
2. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Ms. Miller stated that the property is situated so that it is suitable as both ‘infill’ and ‘transition’ development. Horizon 2020 recommends that both transition and infill development should be compatible with the area and this project would be compatible with the neighborhood.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, agreed with the staff report and thought there were good suggestions. He felt condition 1 was a little precarious. He also stated that this is a “for sale” project and that the goal has always been a product that is buildable and sellable. Mr. Werner said that zoning is driven by required lot width and that the depth makes the lots almost 7,000 square feet. He went on to say that the access will be three shared driveways and that the sewer will be extended to touch all lots, which will be a major cost. He stated that the sanitary sewer runs down the middle of Rockledge which means a manhole will have to come up Rockledge. The only reason he pointed this out was because it will mean a significant infrastructure update that will have to be done with this plan, which will improve the area. In discussing the conditions suggested for the zoning, he agreed with the 25 foot setback, shared access, and would probably be okay with the landscaping. He was unsure about the condition of using 50% masonry. He felt that Single-Family homes would be a win-win situation for everyone and that the homes would be $200,000 homes, not cheap tiny houses.
Commissioner Burress asked for Mr. Werner to show him what the site plan would look like.
Mr. Werner put drawings on the overhead projector for the Commission to see how six homes would be located.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. John Immel, on behalf of Dick and Betty George who have lived at 521 Rockledge for 50 years, stated that the reason the property had never been developed was because the people who owned it did not ever want to develop it. All the surrounding lots have been developed. He felt that a zoning of RS10 would be much more compatible with the existing area. He stated that there is reference in the staff report that this project is a slight change but he felt it was a major change for the people who live in that area. Any change that doubles the density of a piece of ground cannot be categorized as slight and he requests the denial of this request.
Mr. Dan Simons, 444 Country Club Terrace, stated that the character of the neighborhood is large lots and that the neighborhood has already taken a hit with an RO zoning. He was also concerned that the yards would be very steep and cause drainage issues.
Mr. Nathan Kolarik, 545 Rockledge, just moved to the neighborhood a month ago and is concerned about the three access points. He felt that double the amount of housing would lead to double the amount of people and traffic.
Mr. Dick George, 521 Rockledge, stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for 50 years and that development on his north side is RO. He did not feel that it was right to go into an upscale neighborhood and build two houses on a 75 foot lot and wondered if any neighborhood in Lawrence was safe from developers.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Werner stated that the houses will be a variety of single-family homes and that they are not trying to damage anything in the neighborhood.
Mr. Jeff Arensberg stated that he has great interest in making these homes a quality project. He is historically restoring the large house directly behind the lots in question. The rezoning would be in this project’s back yard. He felt this would be a ‘phenomenal’ infill development. The average sale on Rockledge has been $133,000 in the last two years, so these proposed houses would be above market value. He feels that zoning of RS5 would be appropriate for the area.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired about the elevations of the backyards.
Mr. Werner responded that they grade for a walkout basement.
Commissioner Burress wondered if they would financially be able to develop with three lots.
Mr. Arensberg stated that the six lots currently being proposed would be relatively big lots and if they went down to three lots they would be more expensive homes.
Commissioner Burress asked what the price range would be.
Mr. Arensberg replied $350,0000.
Commissioner Burress asked if the land was not rezoned would the value be the same.
Mr. Arensberg stated that when the lot cost is multiplied by two it would be a killer.
Commissioner Harris asked staff how the neighborhood ended up with a commercial property across from a residential area.
Ms. Miller replied she was not sure.
Ms. Stogsdill said that she was not sure of the date but believed that the commercial property had been there since 1966.
Commissioner Harris asked if it would be possible to strike a compromise between the three and six lots.
Ms. Miller responded that it may be possible with attached dwellings such as three structures that would look like three houses. She suggested a different zoning category might work better.
Commissioner Burress asked if they did condition zoning would it be the first time they have completed one and if so, could these conditions be put on the plat?
Ms. Miller thought it would be possible with the exception of the condition regarding architectural features.
Commissioner Burress inquired if any town in Kansas has done this type of conditional zoning where it cannot go on a plat?
Mr. John Miller stated that conditional zoning has occurred in Olathe, Shawnee, Lenexa, etc., but that the very specific issue being discussed would need to be checked on.
Commissioner Krebs asked for a sense of what type of conditions have been placed in other communities.
Mr. Miller gave an example from Overland Park regarding limitations on non-residential use, drive way locations, turn lane locations, cash deposits for escrows, grading conditions, etc. and that he could look at it if necessary.
(Commissioner Eichhorn abstained from this item and left the room)
Commissioner Harris agreed that the density was not a slight increase and that she agrees with the applicant on some aspects of the project. She was persuaded by the people who live in the neighborhood and had sympathy for the encroachment. She went on to say that she could not support double the density, only a slight increase in density.
Commissioner Harkins stated that he has driven down Rockledge many times and that it had potential to be a great neighborhood. He felt the vacant lots do not add to the appearance of the neighborhood and are not well maintained. He thinks this is a convenient location for housing and that people living in these houses will not have to commute far to the college or downtown. He felt that the City would be better off keeping people living in the core of the City and that the project looked like a creative solution to using a piece of property that can be valuable. The land is not valuable at all at this point and he thinks that this is a reasonable way of developing this area.
Commissioner Burress stated that there has to be a tradeoff. Moving toward more infill and higher density creates problems with the neighbors but infill does not always keep in total consistency with the neighborhood. If the houses going in will be more valuable then in economic terms the neighbors should not see a loss in house value. He felt that this project would be in the best interest of the City.
Commissioner Haase felt that when they start doing infill development it is tricky and if they can do it successfully then they should have the neighbors on board to create a band of transition. He was concerned that they are trying to retrofit transition into a difficult area. There is no support from the neighborhood and these houses might attract commuting couples, which will increase traffic during rush hour. He stated that he would oppose this rezoning even though the applicant has gone to great effort.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated that he generally supports infill but that this was a unique situation because it is located in the middle of a neighborhood. He felt it would be difficult to sell larger homes on Rockledge across from commercial property and that something should be created on the land.
Commissioner Harkins felt it would be an enhancement to the neighborhood value.
Commissioner Erickson stated that the neighborhood is being piecemealed out and that she could support RS7, which would be more in keeping with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Krebs agreed with Commissioners Harkins and Burress about favoring infill development, and they are trying to make use of existing land and add more houses to the core of the City rather then elsewhere.
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired to Mr. Werner if he could get four full lots across using RS7?
Mr. Werner responded that he could get 4 lots with RS7.
Commissioner Harris stated that she would prefer RS7 and did not know how to address that.
Ms. Stogsdill advised the Commission that they have the opportunity to use the Lesser Change Table that sets out zoning and that it falls within what is being requested. They could adjust the findings based on the Lesser Change Table and recommend RS7 instead of RS5.
Commissioner Harkins said that he lives a block from a neighborhood that has smaller lots and that they are nice looking.
Commissioner Haase asked if using the Lesser Change Table would require the applicant’s approval.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that they could certainly ask the applicant if they are interested in that and that ultimately the City Commission would decide that.
Mr. Werner said that a compromise of five lots might be possible.
Commissioner Haase asked Mr. Werner if he would accept an RS7 rezoning?
Mr. Werner stated that RS7 would be better than what it is currently zoned, but that it would be more troublesome.
Motioned by Commissioner Harris to recommend approval of the rezoning from RS10 to RS7, subject to the conditions in the Staff Report and using the Lesser Change Table.
Commissioner Harkins stated that the motion is significantly different than what the applicant requested and that the Commission should at least vote on the applicant’s rezoning request first.
Commissioner Erickson wanted clarification on the conditions because the same conditions would not be needed with a rezoning of RS7.
Commissioner Haase asked if it would be possible to poll the neighbors that testified earlier to see how they feel about rezoning the property to RS7.
Commissioner Krebs stated that she thought the neighbors would be in support of RS7 rather than RS5.
Commissioner Harkins did not feel that polling the neighbors was appropriate procedure.
Commissioner Harris stated that she did not know if the conditions would be appropriate for this type of zoning.
Commissioner Erickson said she would second Commissioner Harris’ earlier motion to rezone using the Lesser Change Table with the first two conditions of the staff report.
Ms. Miller advised that they would probably only want condition 2 as the first condition applied only to RS5 zoning.
Commissioner Harris said that this would be acceptable.
Commissioner Krebs asked for a fresh restatement of the motion.
Commissioner Erickson stated that the setback for RS7 would be the same as RS10.
Commissioner Harris said she was comfortable with the motion as it stood.
Commissioner Krebs asked for brief comments from the neighbors.
Commissioner Harkins pointed out that the other neighbors who were not at the meeting were not aware of what they were doing and that the Commission needed to act on the original zoning request.
Commissioner Krebs stated that there was a motion on the table and asked any neighbors with comments to speak.
Mr. Dan Simons said he would still be opposed to the rezoning and that it was not acceptable.
Mr. Arensberg, also owns property in the neighborhood, stated that it seemed strange that the Commission would change the zoning without asking the applicant.
Mr. John Immel stated that the George’s position has not changed and that the neighbors want the property to remain as three lots.
Commissioner Haase pointed out that the applicant did not agree to RS7.
Mr. Nathan Kolarik stated that four lots is definitely better than six.
Commissioner Harris withdrew motion due to lack of support.
ACTION TAKEN
Commissioner Harkins motioned to approve the original applicant rezoning request from RS10 to RS5, subject to the conditions in the Staff Report.
Motion died due to lack of 2nd.
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Harris to recommend denial of the rezoning request, based on the impact on the character of the neighborhood and increased traffic on Rockledge.
Motion carried 5-2-1, with Commissioners Burress, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase and Harris in favor. Commissioners Harkins and Krebs opposed. Commissioner Eichhorn abstained.
PC Minutes 12/20/06
ITEM NO. 15: AMENDMENT TO HORIZON 2020, CHAPTER 5-RESIDENTIAL LAND USE (MJL)
CPA-2006-04: Consider an amendment to Horizon 2020, Chapter 5 – Residential Land Use, to replace Figure 5-1, Planning Unit Concept with Neighborhood Concept developed by the CPC (Comprehensive Planning Committee).
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Michelle Leininger presented the item and gave a summary of the following:
An amendment to Horizon 2020, Chapter 5, to replace Figure 5-1 with the Neighborhood Concept has been developed by the Comprehensive Planning Committee (CPC). After trying to revamp Figure 5-1 and deciding that there are a variety of ways to define a neighborhood illustratively, the CPC decided to produce a description. The neighborhood concept includes physical elements that when put together, make a strong neighborhood. These elements can be put together in a variety of ways depending on the existing landscape, what already exists around the proposed neighborhood and a neighborhood may not necessarily include each element. The elements are partially derived from the new urbanism principles and include clearly defined edges, identifiable hub, mixed housing types, human scale, and connectivity. The proposed neighborhood concept also includes diagrams that illustrate various connectivity methods. The neighborhood concept will be used as a guide for future development of neighborhoods.
At the October 25, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the initiation of this text amendment was discussed. The Commission noted that the neighborhood element “Identifiable Core” indicated an area that was physically centrally located in a neighborhood when a functional meaning was intended. Staff was directed to research different options to replace core with another word that indicates an area that is not necessarily centrally located. Some options are: Center, Centre, Space, Area, Hub, Juncture, Focus, or Gathering Place. Staff recommended Identifiable Hub to be used to replace Identifiable Core.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Haase said that the League of Women Voters had sent a letter asking for the addition of some diagrams and he wanted to know if they were well enough informed to consider it?
Ms. Leininger said she had seen these before but had not studied them in great detail.
Commissioner Erickson stated that these diagrams have to do with dense areas served by bus and that she did not think this could be added to an area without a lot of studies.
Ms. Leininger stated that the current bus service would probably not support this type of development described in the diagram.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei to forward CPA-2006-04 to the City and County Commissions with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact in the staff report.
Motion unanimously carried 8-0.
PC Minutes 12/20/06
ITEM NO. 16: ADOPT UPWP
Adopt 2007 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP).
Conduct a public hearing to consider adoption of the 2007 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), a federally-required program that describes the work that will be done in the upcoming year on transportation-related planning tasks; the current status of transportation planning activities; and an outline of funding sources to accomplish these transportation planning tasks.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Planning Staff recommended approval of the 2007 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and transmittal to the Kansas Department of Transportation. Staff also recommended that the Planning Director or designee be authorized to execute necessary planning grant agreements and planning process certifications with KDOT.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Harkins asked if specific recommendations were for specific action?
Ms. Stogsdill stated that the MPO could approve the 2007 UPWP and transmit to KDOT and give the Planning Director the authority to work with KDOT for 2007.
Commissioner Harkins said all he saw were historic dates.
Ms. Stogsdill said that there are certain projects with specific dates on page 19.
Commissioner Harkins said he was accustomed to looking at a work program with target dates.
Ms. Stogsdill said she was not aware of any target dates but that she will be scheduling a meeting with the director of MARC to assist staff while we have a transportation planning vacancy.
Commissioner Harkins said he was hoping to see the Public Involvement process this month.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that Debbie Van Saun and Lisa Patterson in the City Managers Office were working on developing a public involvement process for T2030. She assumed that would go to the T2030 committee in January so they can set out those milestones for the adoption plan.
Commissioner Krebs asked if the work program was a separate entity to the T2030?
Ms. Stogsdill replied, yes.
Commissioner Finkeldei said he asked KDOT who they send the document to and their answer was that KDOT wanted it to be general because if it is too specific then it would have to be amended every month. The purpose of the document is to justify the money and give a general idea of what will be done with it.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the committee had been working on the document?
Commissioner Finkeldei responded, yes. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) recommend approval.
Commissioner Burress said that pedestrians were mentioned and asked if there was any more work with them?
Ms. Stogsdill said that she did not think it got down to the specifics of that partly because staff does not staff the Pedestrian Advisory Committee. The bicycle components are in there because staff provides support for the bicycle committee. She went on to say that every current planning item the Planning Commission sees considers pedestrians.
Commissioner Burress asked what happened to the sidewalk survey that was talked about a few years ago?
Ms. Stogsdill said that Public Works did do a survey and they identified the gaps. Some funds have been allocated in the 2007 budget and they have a plan to address the gaps along arterial streets first and then move to other streets.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei to approve the 2007 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and forward to the Kansas Department of Transportation with a recommendation of approval. Also to allow the Planning Director or designee be authorized to execute necessary planning grant agreements and planning process certifications with KDOT.
Motion unanimously carried 8-0.
PC Minutes 12/20/06
ITEM NO. 17: AMEND TIP
Review and approve amendments to the 2006-2009 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) submitted by Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) and in response to comments received from Federal Highway Administration. The TIP is a multi-year listing of federally funded and regionally significant improvements to the region’s transportation system.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Planning Staff recommended that the Planning Commission, acting in its role as MPO, approve the amendments to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and transmit the TIP to KDOT with a request for approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Haase wondered about the language that the program is an implementing agency and was curious what constituted as “program?” Wondered why the Eastern Bypass was different from the eastern leg of the South Lawrence Trafficway.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that the TIP is a five year document and must be financially constrained. The removal of the Eastern Bypass is required because it is not anticipated to be developed by 2009. She read the recommendation from the FHWA’s most recent triennial review.
Commissioner Finkeldei said the implementing agency was either the Federal Highway or KDOT. He went on to say that the TIP is to tell them that we want money for these projects.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that the SLT is a KDOT project.
Commissioner Haase said he would like some clarification on why the Eastern Bypass is really significantly different than the east leg of the SLT.
Commissioner Burress stated that he would like someone with more knowledge to confirm and if there is not funding from KDOT or the Federal Highway then they do not want it on there.
Commissioner Harris asked if there was funding from KDOT or the Federal Highway for the SLT?
Ms. Stogsdill replied that KDOT had already expended funds on the SLT.
Commissioner Burress asked if would be possible to put some of the transportation planning money into that and get it on the TIP.
Commissioner Haase inquired about the consequences of not taking action on this tonight?
Ms. Stogsdill said that the State was anxious to have their project included so they could begin working on plans for the bridge in 2007.
Commissioner Haase asked if the Commission could wait for clarification on the eastern bypass and the inclusion in TIP.
Commissioner Finkeldei said the Federal Highway Administration told him that the TIP is out of compliance and if the Commission does not adopt it by the end of the year the TIP will be out of compliance and money cannot be spent.
Commissioner Krebs suggested that the Commission act on the amendments and then figure out funding for eastern bypass and bring the amendment back to the TIP.
Commissioner Harris asked if the TIP could be updated in a month’s time?
Ms. Stogsdill said that there is not a procedure and one needs to be developed. In the past amendments are sent to TAC and then the recommendation gets forwarded to the MPO.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Finkeldei to approve the amendments to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and transmit the TIP to KDOT with a request for approval.
Motion carried 6-1-1, with Commissioner Haase voting in opposition and Commissioner Harris abstained.
PC Minutes 12/20/06
ITEM NO. 18: APPROVE T2030 FUTURE LAND USE MAP (DDW)
Approve T2030 Future Land Use Map for use in transportation modeling for the update of the Long-Range Transportation Plan.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Dan Warner presented the item and gave a summary. He pointed out the changes on the map to the Commission.
Federal transportation regulations require, among other things, that MPO long-range transportation plans be updated at least every five years and encompass at least a 20-year planning horizon. The Future Land Use Map developed for the preparation of Transportation 2025 (T-2025) is being updated to extend land use scenarios into several areas of the region that are likely to experience development during 2006-2030. Using the T-2025 map as a base, staff has been working with the Planning Commission and T-2030 Committee to develop a 2030 future land use map. After additional discussion on the land use scenarios and Planning Commission agreement that the map is acceptable for use in developing the transportation plan, staff will use the map as a guide for developing the 2030 housing and employment projections needed for the travel demand model.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Krebs asked if new language was put into Horizon 2020 for mixed use neighborhoods?
Ms. Stogsdill responded, the mixed use text amendment was to the commercial chapter.
Commissioner Krebs wanted clarification that the Commission is just approving one map to use for modeling and once it is approved then the language “TND” can be removed.
Mr. Warner responded, that was correct.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the cross references would be clear?
Commissioner Krebs replied, correct; once adopted, the TND title can be removed because only one map will be utilized.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Haase to approve the TND map version of the future land use scenario.
Motion unanimously approved 8-0.
PC Minutes 12/20/06
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Dan Warner reminded the Planning Commission of the Smartcode onsite and upcoming charrette.
SLT discussion from Monday:
Commissioner Krebs feels the MPO should restate their opinion and resubmit comments to FHWA.
Commissioner Harkins felt that a short letter, with no details, affirming their position that the 32nd Street alignment does make a significant impact on historic land and that there are alternatives that would be less damaging, would be appropriate.
Commissioner Finkeldei felt they should not be having this discussion because it was not on the agenda for public comments.
Commissioner Krebs stated that it would just be reaffirming the MPO’s previous stance.
Commissioner Finkeldei respectfully disagreed.
Commissioner Eichhorn agreed with Commissioner Harkins about reaffirming their stance with a short letter.
Commissioner Haase said that there are multiple alternatives and that they created a substantial cost difference between the two alternatives. He has not heard an argument about why that argument has not been included in public discussion.
Commissioner Harkins thought the letter would only be a formality and will only create a record that the MPO objected. He said that the City is not going to get anything other then the 32nd Street alignment.
Commissioner Haase felt that they would not influence the process with the letter but that he believes there will be litigation and he would like it on record that the Federal Highway ignored the MPO.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harkins, seconded by Commissioner Harris to request staff draft a short letter reaffirming the MPO’s position that the 32nd Street alignment will have a significant impact on historic land and that other alternatives exist.
Motion carried 7-1, with Commissioner Finkeldei in opposition.
Mid-month topics:
Commissioner Eichhorn felt that more discussion on the ECO2 should be included in the next mid-month meeting and also that something about the MPO and TIP process would be helpful.
Commissioner Harris suggested that the Orientation Committee be talked about at some point.
____________________________________________________________________________
ADJOURN 10:05pm