PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 26, 2007
Meeting minutes
_____________________________________________________________
February 26, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins, Harris, Jennings, Lawson and Student Commissioner Robb
Staff present: Stogsdill, Corliss, Day, Leininger, M. Miller, Patterson, Pool, Rexwinkle, J. Miller, Warner, and Brown
_____________________________________________________________
Receive and amend or approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 2007.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to approve the January 22, 2007 Planning Commission minutes as written.
Motion was approved 8-0-1 with Commissioner Harris abstaining. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
CPC: Commissioner Jennings stated the committee met and discussed the Southern Development Plan.
RZO: Commissioner Eichhorn said the committee met with the Register of Deeds, GIS, and County Surveyor and discussed certificate of surveys being processed.
TAC: Commissioner Finkeldei reported that the committee met several times since the last Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Harris stated that the Commissioner Orientation Committee needs to meet.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Sheila Stogsdill outlined the following communications:
Item 1 – PC Resolution 2007-01
· Letter from the League of Women Voters
Item 3 – FDP for Miracon Plaza; NE corner of Wakarusa Dr. & Clinton Pkwy.
Item 4 – PF for Midnight Farm; NW corner of E 2100 Road & N 600 Road
Item 7 – Resolution No. 6697
Misc. Item I – T2030 Update
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte
· Commissioner Finkeldei declared abstention from Item 4, PF-01-01-07
· There were no deferral requests to consider
Commissioner Burress requested Items 1-4 be taken off the Consent Agenda and added to the Regular Agenda.
PC Minutes 2/26/07
ITEM NO. 1: PC RESOLUTION 2007-01 (MJL)
PC Resolution 2007-01: Authorize Chair/Vice-Chair to sign resolution regarding CPA-2006-04 Amendment to Horizon 2020 Chapter 5.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress stated that he pulled items from the Consent Agenda because he felt that if someone went to the effort of writing a letter than it should be addressed. He supported all of the League of Women Voter changes in wording, but now would not be the time since the amendment had already gone through the approval process.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that it would not be appropriate to change it at this point in the process.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei to authorize the Chair/Vice-Chair to sign PC Resolution 2007-01.
Motion carried 9-0 unanimously. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
PC Minutes 2/26/07
ITEM NO. 2: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PINE RIDGE PLAZA; SE CORNER OF 31ST & IOWA (SLD)
FDP-01-01-07: A Final Development Plan for Pine Ridge Plaza, Lot 2. The property is located at the SE corner of 31st and Iowa Street. Submitted by Peridian Group for Inland Western Lawrence LLC c/o Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust I, property owner of record.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress asked if the reason for Staff support was because of the 3% increase?
Ms. Sandra Day responded that it is only a small increase to the total PCD and that it was shown on early development plans.
Commissioner Burress said that 3% was not much of an increase but was concerned about an applicant asking for 3% thirty times. He wanted to know if Staff would support an additional percentage increase?
Ms. Day said she would be surprised if Staff supported that.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to approve the Final Development Plan for Pine Ridge Plaza, Lot 2 based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
2. Provision of a mylar and applicable recording fees, prior to issuance of a building permit.
Motion carried 9-0 unanimously. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
PC Minutes 2/26/07
ITEM NO. 3: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MIRACON PLAZA; NE CORNER OF WAKARUSA DR & CLINTON PKWY (LAP)
FDP-01-02-07: A Final Development Plan for Phase 1 of Miracon Plaza, located on the NE corner of Wakarusa Drive and Clinton Parkway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Off-Piste, Inc., property owner of record.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress asked Staff to show the area for which a variance is being requested.
Ms. Lisa Pool pointed to a map showing which three parking spaces will encroach into the 30-foot perimeter setback.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Tim Herndon stated that the NE corner of Clinton Parkway and Wakarusa has additional right-of-way dedication that differs from the other three corners of the intersection.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to approve Phase 1 of the Final Development Plan for Miracon Plaza based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Recordation at the Register of Deeds’ Office of the Miracon Plaza Final Plat.
2. Provision of the following fees and documentation:
a) An Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for the Construction of Traffic Signals and Intersection Improvements at Wakarusa Drive and Wakarusa Court.
b) A Site Plan Performance Agreement.
c) An approved photometric plan.
d) Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
3. Revision of the Final Development Plan to include the following changes:
a) Revision of the note “Perimeter S/B encroachment (See General Note #31)” to “Perimeter S/B encroachment (See General Note #36)”.
b) Revision of the easements, specifically drainage, access, and pedestrian/utility easements, to be in conformance with the Miracon Addition Final Plat.
c) Addition of the following note: “All private property will be maintained by the owner of Lot 2 until such time as other lots are developed. Applicable covenants and restrictions governing the shared maintenance of common facilities will be recorded with subsequent final development s plans for Lots 1 and/or 3”.
Motion carried 9-0 unanimously. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
Minutes 2/26/07
ITEM NO. 4: FINAL PLAT FOR MIDNIGHT FARM; NW CORNER OF E 2100 ROAD & N 600 ROAD (LAP)
PF-01-01-07: A Final Plat for Midnight Farm Addition, located on the NW corner of E 2100 Road and N 600 Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Community Living Opportunities, property owner of record.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress stated that Larry Hoover raised relevant points in his letter but that they had
already been considered with the previously approved applications for this property.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to approve the Final Plat for Midnight Farm and forward to the Board of County Commissioners for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. A current copy of a paid property tax receipt.
b. Provision of a signed Water Supply Agreement.
c. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
2. Revision of the plat to include the following note:
a. Interior lot lines and setback lines to indicate future lots necessary at such time that Midnight Farms is subdivided for separate ownership, septic tank and lateral field locations, and septic tank and lateral field size specifications per the May 15, 2006 Health Board variance approval are shown on the Midnight Farm Preliminary Plat (PP-11-16-06) and the Midnight Farm Conditional Use Permit (CUP-04-03-06), which are on file at the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Office.
Motion carried 8-0-1, with Commissioner Finkeldei abstaining. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
PC Minutes 2/26/07
ITEM NO. 5A: UR [PCD-2] TO RM-24; SE QUADRANT OF SOUTH LAWRENCE TRAFFICWAY & SIXTH ST/U.S. HWY 40 (SLD)
Z-01-01-07: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately .91 acres, from UR [PCD-2] (Planned Commercial Development) to RM-24 (Multi-Dwelling Residential). The property is located at the SE Quadrant of South Lawrence Trafficway and Sixth Street (U.S. Hwy 40). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Debbie Liu of Diamond Head Limited Partnership, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Sandra Day presented Items 5A and 5B together. Staff recommended approval of both the Rezoning and Final Plat for Diamondhead. She noted the proposed rezoning is a clean-up to the plans to extend a street and adjust interior lot lines of the original plat.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. C.L. Maurer, Landplan Engineering, was present in the audience to answer any questions but gave no presentation.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to approve the Rezoning of .91 acres from UR [PCD-2] to RM24 and forward to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact stated in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the recording of a final plat for the subject property.
Motion passed unanimously, 9-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.
PC Minutes 2/26/07
ITEM NO. 5B: FINAL PLAT FOR DIAMONDHEAD 2ND PLAT; SE QUADRANT OF SOUTH LAWRENCE TRAFFICWAY & SIXTH ST/U.S. HWY 40 (SLD)
PF-01-02-07: A Final Plat for Diamondhead 2ND Plat, located at the SE Quadrant of South Lawrence Trafficway and Sixth Street (U.S. Hwy 40). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Debbie Liu of Diamond Head Limited Partnership, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to approve the Final Plat of Diamondhead 2nd Plat and forward to the City Commission with a recommendation for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
a. Inset of ROW on GWW between Lot 1 and Lot 4 is not necessary,
b. Note access restrictions to GWW for Lot 3, Block 1 in general notes and show graphically
c. Revised easement along Ken Ridge Drive to note for use as UE and PE
d. Show full boundary width and dimension of access easement across (east/west) Lot 5, Block 1 (commercial parcel)
e. Extend cross access to Ken Ridge Drive through Lot 5, Block 1.
f. Show corner right-of-way dedication on north side of Ken Ridge Drive for future traffic calming improvement.
2. Per the approval of the City Stormwater Engineer add the following notes to the face of the Final Plat:
a. “Tract ‘A’ will be privately-owned and maintained. The developer is responsible for establishing ownership and maintenance of same via individual owner maintenance.”
b. “The drainage easement in the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 2 will be privately-owned and maintained. The developer is responsible for establishing ownership and maintenance of same via individual owner maintenance”
3. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for street, Stormwater, water and gas line relocation, and geometric improvements for George Williams Way including the intersection at W. 6th Street south to and including Ken Ridge Drive.
4. Provision of an executed encroachment agreement with Southern Star regarding development across the gas line and within exclusive easement.
5. Submission and approval of public improvement plans prior to the recording of the Final Plat.
6. Provision of a revised master street tree plan per City Staff approval to amend the types of species as noted in the review comments previously provided.
Motion passed unanimously, 9-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.
Recess LDCMPC
Convene MPO
PC Minutes 2/26/07
ITEM NO. 6: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO TIP
Consider amendments to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) – FY 2006-2009.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Paul Patterson introduced the item to consider amendments to the Transportation Improvement Program. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission, acting in its role as MPO, approve the requested 3 amendments to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and transmit the TIP to KDOT with a request for approval.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if a bus really cost $330,000?
Mr. Patterson replied, yes.
Commissioner Harkins inquired about the meaning of the second sentence of item 3 “They would like to preserve pre-award authority for local match against any future earmarks awarded for buses or bus facilities.”
Mr. Patterson stated that he did not know yet if the funding will be granted but that it needed to be in the TIP amendment as 3 new buses and Kansas University will purchase the buses if they are not included in the grant. It is required to place this purchase in the TIP so that they can acquire the buses in the future.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated that if they use local money now they can use this as a match for future federal money.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to approve the requested 3 amendments to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and transmit the TIP to KDOT with a request for approval.
Motion passed unanimously, 9-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.
Recess MPO
Reconvene LDCMPC
PC Minutes 2/26/07
ITEM NO. 7: RESOLUTION NO. 6697
Receive public comment and provide recommendation to the City Commission on Resolution No. 6697, establishing goals for coordination of certain long range planning efforts in the City’s growth areas.
STAFF PRESENTATION
City Manager, Mr. Dave Corliss, presented the item. He gave a summary of the following:
This resolution represents an effort to identify the various long-range planning activities that are underway and to provide the governing body with a framework for coordinating the various efforts that are underway. An earlier version of this resolution was presented to the City Commission on December 12, 2006. The Commission forwarded the resolution to the Planning Commission for comment.
The Planning Commission discussed the resolution at their January 10, 2007 mid-month meeting and recommended there be revisions to clarify that annexation should not occur prior to adoption of land use plans for the area requested. The revised resolution was placed on the January 16, 2007 City Commission agenda. The Commission suggested the document be placed on a regular Planning Commission agenda for public comment.
Mr. Corliss went on to say that the resolution wording and use in the planning process has been the subject of some discussion and that communication from the public has been received. Mr. Corliss stated that he would like to have the long-range instruments in place before development requests are proposed.
Commissioner Burress summarized his interpretation of the resolution:
· prioritize certain areas
· do not annex before sector plans are adopted
· do not develop without annexation
Mr. Corliss stated that the City Commission has been hesitant to encourage annexation without a sector plan in place.
Commissioner Lawson inquired about the County Commission involvement.
Mr. Corliss said that he met with County Commissioner Bob Johnson and he relayed concerns about the County’s involvement with the resolution. The Board of County Commissioners would participate when considering the new water reclamation plant by virtue of state law but otherwise they would not participate unless the applicant wanted them to be involved.
Commissioner Lawson wanted to know if the County Commission thought the resolution was a worthwhile document.
Mr. Corliss replied that one of the County Commissioners did not feel the resolution was appropriate. He went on to say that if they come back with a sector plan for the area outside of the City it will involve the Board of County Commission in the planning process. If sector plans are adopted, then it will need to be amended into the comprehensive plan, which will involve the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Lawson had concerns about the ability to complete plans in a timely manner and that it may be viewed as an indirect moratorium.
Mr. Corliss stated that Commissioner Lawson had legitimate concerns but that the City Commission needed to go on record to state the importance of having long-range plans in place. He went on to say that the sector plans will be done in a diligent fashion and he believes the City has the resources to do that. He was willing to modify the resolution document to make it more clear.
Commissioner Burress wanted to know if there was a rush to adopt the resolution?
Mr. Corliss said that he wanted to elevate emphasis on long-range planning and that there is no rush other than he would like to start the sector plan process. He saw a need for this document and if the Planning Commission has a project come before them he would like for them to be able to have the right tools in place to address the project appropriately.
Commissioner Harkins appreciated the effort that the City Manager took in initiating the document but he felt that it was more of a City Commission document, not Planning Commission.
Mr. Corliss felt that the document would be a beneficial way for the public to see a list of items that the City would like to work on and would lay out all the long-range plans.
Commissioner Harkins asked if Mr. Corliss envisioned placing a timeline into the document? He gave the example of the environmental chapter in Horizon2020 which places sector plans first.
Mr. Corliss felt that having a timeline was a good suggestion. He stated there were a number of amendments to the comprehensive plan in review and consideration which will eventually be adopted. He went on to say that maybe the resolution format was not the best format but that it was the best for the City Commission to consider it being important.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated that the resolution talked about identifiable areas and wanted to know if those were the areas studied by PlaceMakers?
Mr. Corliss replied, yes.
PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Jane Eldredge, land use attorney, was concerned not about the motivation but rather about procedure and process. She felt that the resolution was in conflict with Horizon2020 and in violation of the law. She thought it was important because once the community elected to follow a joint City and County Planning Commission it should not then be decided to do planning in a different way. She went on to say that it is an action by the City, not a joint City and County action. Horizon2020 is the foundation for specific area plans and the resolution is using the consultant reports for the foundation. Horizon2020 identifies service areas in the Urban Growth Area. Development may occur in each area of the Urban Growth Areas if it follows the policy guidelines. Annexation is certainly a City action but the annexation policy grows out of Horizon2020 and the annexation policy is stated in Horizon2020. Ms. Eldredge continued by saying that changes to that policy should change first in Horizon2020 and should go through City Commission, County Commission, and then Planning Commission. The resolution suggests that there is no annexation without a plan. If we want to confuse our planning process we could adopt the resolution. We need to have a harmonious planning process. She stated that a resolution was not less legally binding than an ordinance and that policies should be established through standard procedure.
Commissioner Burress asked Ms. Eldredge if she thought that the City had the power to turn down an annexation request and if she knew of any that had been turned down.
Ms. Eldredge felt that if all the conditions were met that the power to turn down an annexation request was marginal. She also stated that she was not aware of any annexations that had been turned down.
Commissioner Haase asked Ms. Eldredge if she said that the City had complete control of extension of infrastructure?
Ms. Eldredge said she thought that it was a fair statement but not complete. She felt that there was infrastructure extension policy within Horizon2020.
Commissioner Haase stated that the Board of County Commission had unilateral control over access management in the County. The City’s infrastructure policy could be a tool to control development.
Ms. Eldredge said that there is an inter-local agreement with the City and County that would be controlled by the City.
Mr. Corliss stated that the City and County have a cooperation agreement.
Commissioner Harkins repeated that Ms. Eldredge had pointed out that Horizon2020 is a policy plan, but that the sector plans are not policy. He inquired if Ms. Eldredge was suggesting that they cannot do physical planning outside the boundaries of the city in preparation for development?
Ms. Eldredge stated that Horizon2020 was a policy for framework. The Northwest Area Plan was done within the framework, in coordination with the County. She went on to say that the joint subdivision regulations had just been adopted for development in the Urban Growth Areas. The resolution seemed to suggest that no development would occur except in areas with approval sector plans.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that he thought it would only apply to the City and their annexation, or any other item that may come from the County.
Ms. Eldredge feels that it would be a concern either in the County or the other portions of the Urban Growth Area.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that Service Area 1 of the Urban Growth Area would essentially not allow to be built on, so even adopting this wouldn’t preclude that sort of development.
Ms. Eldredge said she was concerned about Service Area 4.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the intent of the resolution was troublesome?
Ms. Eldredge said that the intent was good, but that the long-range planning efforts need to be kept up.
Commissioner Harkins wanted to know if Ms. Eldredge had suggestions?
Ms. Eldredge stated that she knew that the City sets goals and that it could be added to that list of goals.
Commissioner Harkins stated that this is an administrative process.
Ms. Eldredge said she thought that adoption of the resolution would delay development.
Commissioner Harkins asked Ms. Eldredge if she thought it was illegal for the City to want to plan ahead of development?
Ms. Eldredge replied, no and that is why Horizon2020 was very important. She felt that it should be stated that the City would have a moratorium in a certain area until developed if that was the intent.
Commissioner Haase stated that any development South of the Wakarusa River would be unlikely before 2011. He has heard many people argue that West of 15th Street needs connectivity but the area West of K-10 is not likely to expand until the 15th Street intersection is built.
Ms. Eldredge said that if it will not be allowed to develop until plans are in place then it needs to be done through the comprehensive planning process.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that they are not precluding all development through the Subdivision Regulations in the Urban Growth Area, only urban scale development. The resolution would not be binding on those development requests because they would occur in the County prior to annexation.
Ms. Eldredge said that if that was the case how would they allow County development that may not be consistent with sector plans?
Commissioner Eichhorn said that he did not think they could tell the County how to change their regulations.
Commissioner Burress stated that there were two types of development, County and City. Refusing to annex was not a moratorium; it just meant no urban-scale development in those areas.
Ms. Eldredge said that there ought to be an amendment to Horizon2020 annexation policies that states that, rather than separate policies.
Commissioner Burress asked how planning efforts should be prioritized and if she thought there was anything in Horizon2020 that said how to prioritize?
Ms. Eldredge indicated that the Planning Commission, with advice from staff, should identify the priorities.
Commissioner Burress asked if she was saying that the City does not have a say in what happens and that she believes Horizon2020 calls for a joint process?
Ms. Eldredge thought it was contained in the state statutes.
Commissioner Harkins asked Ms. Eldredge if she thought it would be okay if someone who owned property in the Urban Growth Area, absent any plans by the City, decided to develop their piece of property? And would the City be obligated to let that happen?
Ms. Eldredge replied no, there are a set of policies that say the City should evaluate requests based on various factors.
Ms. Bobbie Flory, Lawrence Homebuilders Association, stated that the intent of the resolution was acceptable, but needs to be in the adopted plans. She objected to the resolution format. She said that the PlaceMakers study was not finished and that the SmartCode has not been presented to the public yet for debate. She liked that the City was trying to raise awareness to the public on what is going on but was concerned about requiring an area or sector plan to be in place prior to development due to the length of time those efforts have taken in the past. She would prefer to see the City Manager post the info on the City website or put in another format other than a resolution.
Commissioner Burress asked why Ms. Flory objected to the resolution format?
Ms. Flory stated that she had not heard a compelling reason to justify the resolution format. She believed it gave weight to reports that have not yet been completed.
Commissioner Haase stated that there had been land use plans for the Southeast Area for the last thirty years. The area debate was due to a proposal to change from the previous plans.
Ms. Flory stated that it was an unreasonable time for some planning efforts.
Commissioner Harris said she was interested in hearing more about what the County thought.
Ms. Flory stated that County Commissioner, Bob Johnson, wrote a letter to the City Commission in opposition to the resolution format.
Commissioner Harris asked Mr. Corliss about the County Commission’s opinion.
Mr. Corliss stated that he scheduled a meeting with County Commissioner, Bob Johnson, and that he had expressed concerned about the County’s lack of involvement in the process. Mr. Corliss agreed with Ms. Eldredge and stated that there should be an amendment to Horizon2020. He went on to say that the resolution was an attempt to create something that would be initiated. Eventually Horizon2020 would need an amendment to include sector plans. He disagreed with Ms. Eldredge’s comments about annexation because the City Commission can use discretionary authority to determine annexation. Nothing in the Comprehensive Plan will require annexation.
Commissioner Burress said that if the City had the power not to annex, wouldn’t it have the ability to adopt when annexations could take place. He wondered if the City had the ability to allocate the resources?
Mr. Corliss replied, yes, certainly. He would like to think that those are things that could be done. He is interested in the outcome so there is a need to adopt sector plans that would be part of the Comprehensive Plan and clearly identify goals with specificity.
Commissioner Haase was surprised this topic was so contentious. He would like to be able to empower the Planning Department to initiate long-range planning and did not want the planning process to be delayed.
Commissioner Harkins inquired if Horizon2020 could be amended to say that policy and sector plans reflect those policies and keep them current.
Mr. Corliss replied that as long as there was harmony between the sector plans and the rest of the plan.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Haase stated that they are not prepared to recommend approval of the resolution. He would like staff to draft Comprehensive Plan amendments based on consensus building.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the CPC committee would be the appropriate committee to look at it?
Commissioner Haase said that CPC already had a pretty big workload.
Commissioner Burress was concerned about whether it was good policy to tell people that they could not annex until having a sector plan. He also wondered who would decide how to allocate resources and how to have City Commission tell the City Manager how to implement. He felt that a resolution made sense and was a good idea.
Commissioner Lawson agreed with Commissioner Burress. He also felt that the City Manager and Staff should work on the issue.
Commissioner Harkins stated that the document was originated by the City Manager for the City Commission and he was not comfortable asking the Planning Staff to rewrite it. He thought that the disagreement was not in the purpose of the document but rather the technique. He felt that a resolution format was not the best method of expressing the way for the City to go. He thought that there were many other document forms that it could be used and suggested the City Manager change the format.
Mr. Corliss said that this subject could be tabled for now to allow CPC to look at the resolution and report back to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Harkins preference was to encourage the City Manager to change the type of document from a resolution to another form that would not have legal implications.
Mr. Corliss said that was acceptable to him but he did not want someone to come to him later and say that they were not aware of what long-range plans were in the works. He stated that he could have CPC look at the issues discussed this evening.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that he thought Commissioner Harkins would like for Mr. Corliss to take the initiative to rework the document instead of sending it to CPC or Staff.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to table the discussion and refer it back to the City Manager to reframe the text and return to Planning Commission for further consideration.
Commissioner Jennings asked if it should be brought back to Planning Commission or the Comprehensive Planning Committee first?
Commissioner Harris stated she would leave that decision up to the City Manager.
Commissioner Haase stated that there are Subdivision Regulations in the Urban Growth Area that might allow development that would conflict with sector plans. He felt that the sector plans could provide guidance for build-thru plans.
Commissioner Burress supported the concept.
Motion passed unanimously, 9-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.
PC Minutes 2/26/07
MISC. ITEM NO. 1:
Discussion of future Mid-month topics. (No discussion since topics were identified at the February mid-month meeting.)
MISC. ITEM NO. 2:
Recess LDCMPC
Reconvene MPO
Due to the Transportation Planner staff vacancy, in early January the City issued a Request for Proposals for transportation planning consultants to assist in the completion of the update to the Long Range Transportation Plan [LRTP]. Responses were received from the following five firms: Iteris/Olsson Associates/Patti Banks Associates; URS Corporation; Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation; LSA Associates; and Parsons Brinckerhoff/Patti Banks Associates.
Following review by staff from Planning, City & County Public Works, Transit, and KDOT, two firms were invited to interview. On Friday, February 23rd, staff from those departments/agencies along with the Assistant City Manager and MPO representatives from the Technical Advisory Committee & the T2030 Committee met to hear presentations from LSA and Parsons Brinckerhoff. LSA Associates prepared the last LRTP and is under contract for on-call modeling. The review committee determined that each firm had strengths and could complete the update by the September 2007 deadline. With the current staff vacancies, the committee concluded that Parsons Brinckerhoff (with staff located in Kansas City) could provide more support to the overall transportation planning effort and has more experience in developing plans in communities facing similar time constraints.
Staff recommended that the MPO endorse the selection so that staff may enter into negotiations with Parsons Brinckerhoff/Patti Banks Associates for completion of the Long Range Transportation Plan.
Commissioner Harkins asked if they need to authorize staff to sign a contract?
Commissioner Finkeldei stated that the money will come from federal dollars that the MPO already has the authority to allocate.
Commissioner Haase asked if the money came from the TIP?
Ms. Stogsdill stated that the money is allocated through the UPWP.
Commissioner Harris stated that Parsons Brinckerhoff/Patti Banks Associates had a stronger public involvement process and offered more staff support and that is why she voted for them.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to approve the selection of Parsons Brinckerhoff/Patti Banks Associates for the completion of the Long Range Transportation Plan.
Motion passed unanimously, 9-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.
Adjourn MPO
Reconvene PC
ADJOURN 8:45pm