PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

March 26 & 28, 2007

Meeting minutes

_____________________________________________________________

March 26, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.

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

Staff present: Stogsdill, Day, Leininger, Liebst, A. Miller, J. Miller, M. Miller, Patterson, Brown, and Parker

_____________________________________________________________

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Receive and amend or approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of February, 26, 2007.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to approve the January 22, 2007 Planning Commission minutes as written.

Motion approved 9-0. Commissioner Harkins was absent. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Commissioner Harris stated the Planning Commission Orientation Committee met and developed a draft agenda for orientation. The first orientation retreat will be in June 2007, followed by a second session in the fall. The APA orientation agenda is being used as a guide, and the committee will develop a packet for each new commissioner.

COMMUNICATIONS

Ms. Sheila Stogsdill outlined the following communications:

Item 12 – SUP for Lawrence Community Shelter

· Memo from Staff

EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST

· Ex parte: Commissioner Finkeldei received positive phone call regarding the Lawrence Community Shelter.  Commissioner Eichhorn received emails related to 6^th and Aberdeen.

· Commissioner Finkeldei declared abstention from Items 6A, 6B, and 6C.

· There were no deferral requests to consider

PC Minutes 3/26/07

ITEM NO. 1: PC RESOLUTION 2007-02

PC Resolution 2007-02:  Authorize Chair/Vice-Chair to sign resolution regarding CPA-2004-02 Amendment to Horizon 2020 Chapter 7.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Burress requested to pull Agenda Items 1 and 3 from the consent agenda because letters had been received.  The letter from the League of Women Voters raised issues regarding the wording.  It was agreed the letter was received too late.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Haase to authorize the Chair/Vice-Chair to sign PC Resolution 2007-02.

Motion carried 9-0 unanimously. Commissioner Harkins was not present. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.

PC Minutes 3/26/07

ITEM NO. 2:     FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR NORTHGATE, 6^TH STREET AND GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (SLD)

FDP-02-08-07:  Final Development Plan for Northgate, Lots 1, 2, and 3, located at 6^th Street and George Williams Way. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Terra Venture, Inc., Diamondhead Limited Partnership, property owner of record.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Harris requested to pull Item 2 from the consent agenda for clarification. She suggested corrections be made to the table on page 3 of the Staff Report, regarding open space requirements.

Ms. Sandra Day agreed to make the corrections.

Applicant CL Mauer, Landplan Engineering, requested the wording in Item 5A be revised.  He stated it was written for the Preliminary Development Plan, it conflicted with conditions that were approved by the Commission (#8) on a previous action taken.  A benefit district had not been formed.  A year is required for project design and approval.

Ms. Day stated she had a discussion with CL Mauer for the director of Public Works.  The City was actively pursuing the creation of a benefit district at George Williams Way and 6^th street, to allow for construction of commercial buildings.  Mr. Soules had informed Ms. Day he did not want to revise the condition.  She noted that if they fell behind the applicant could be held up in opening the commercial buildings, and that the City was initiating the benefit district, which had not been formed and it was expected to be on a future City Commission agenda.

Commissioner Burress stated the applicant was given a privilege at the preliminary and asked if that could be taken away at the final stage.

Commissioner Haase responded yes.

Mr. John Miller, City Staff attorney also responded yes.

Commissioner Burress asked if Staff was complying.

Ms. Day responded yes.

Commissioner Eichhorn asked Mr. Maurer if he realized it could be difficult to get into the development at certain times.

Commissioner Burress asked Mr. Maurer if he objected to the City doing all the development at once.

Mr. Maurer responded he did not have a problem with the City performing all of the developments at once; but was concerned with the time frame.

Ms. Day acknowledged the time line and indicated the target date of 18 months was not 100% guaranteed.

Commissioner Finkeldei asked Ms. Day if the City had changed its mind, decided to do everything at once, and when that decision had been made.

Ms. Day responded, 60-90 days ago.

Commissioner Finkeldei stated he was persuaded that the rules changed on the applicant in the middle of the game and suggested the Commission allow the applicant to go forth.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Jennings, to replace condition 5a with text from the Preliminary Development Plan, as presented in the below conditions.

Motion carried 9-0-1, with Commissioner Harkins abstaining. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.

Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Jennings, to approve the Final Development Plan for Northgate based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to the release of the Final Development Plan for issuance of building permits the following documents shall be provided or executed:

a. Recording of the Final Plat with the Register of Deeds Office

b. Publication of the rezoning ordinances

c. Provision of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3), Per City Code Section 9-903(B), for this project prior to release of the plan for issuance of building permits. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained

2. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to include the following changes per the City Public Works and Utility Department review comments:

a. Removal of private service lines on the drawing that show direct connections to manholes  for buildings A and C

3. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to show a separate utility page and notes separate from the site plan.

4. Show and note on Face of the Final Development Plan the following changes:

a. Phasing:

i. Provide detailed phasing and occupancy notes for project. What improvements will be in place before building permits are issued and what will be completed before occupancy.

ii. Phasing note should include private elements such as internal drive, curbs, sidewalks, etc. as improvements constructed initially.

b. General Design Standards:

i. Show and or note that gutter down spouts should not flow over building sidewalks.

ii. Show typical material details for buildings to demonstrate that all buildings will include similar materials throughout the development.

5. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to include the following changes:

a. Provision of a note on the face of the Final Development Plan that states that occupancy of commercial buildings is prohibited until public improvements to George Williams Way intersections of W. 6^th Street and Ken Ridge Drive are completed. “Geometric improvements for the intersection of W. 6^th Street and George Williams Way shall be constructed as necessary before each phase of commercial development”

b. Provide note to provide reference to use groups from previous zoning code.

c. Amend general note 28 to add “Final Development Plan”.

Motion carried 9-0 unanimously. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.

PC Minutes 3/26/07

ITEM NO. 3:     FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ABERDEEN ON 6^TH, SE CORNER OF 6^TH STREET AND STONERIDGE DRIVE (SLD)

FDP-02-09-07:  Final Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6^th, located on the SE corner of 6^th Street and Stoneridge Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for MS Construction Co., Inc., property owner of record.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Burress stated Staffs response was to allow the Commission to make the conditions.

Ms. Sandra Day responded that she spoke with the applicants architect and discussed the gate being ornamental and not a swing arm.

Commissioner Burress requested a design the Commissioners could view.

Ms. Day showed overhead photos and suggested a pedestrian connection should remain with more of an ornamental gate and a column of rock to extend landscaping.

Commissioner Burress asked if there was language that suggested that.

Ms. Day responded yes, the revised memo provided to the Commission indicated an ornamental gate with a center opening instead of a swing arm gate.

Mr. Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, suggested he would resubmit a plan for an ornamental gate, either single or dual arm.  He asked why irrigation (3a) was an issue with this project when it had never been recommended in the past.  He stated Staff also suggested trees (3b) be planted at the earliest possible time, right after infrastructure. However the irrigation may not be operating, and with heavy equipment being used, brand new trees may not survive.

Mr. Werner stated he would like to see 3g eliminated, the condition was not needed, and he had not seen it before.  The elevation on the garage was overlooked, so he would revise and resubmit the elevations.

Commissioner Burress asked Mr. Werner if he wanted 3g to be eliminated.

Commissioner Krebs stated that there is also 3c.

Commissioner Haase asked how emergency vehicles would get through the gate.

Mr. Werner explained the gate functions off of emergency vehicles’ horns, which trigger the gate automatically.

Commissioner Lawson asked if the gate is electric.

Mr. Werner replied yes, but if for some reason it would not work, vehicles would just drive through the gate.

Commissioner Lawson asked Mr. Werner if there was an issue with 3b.

Mr. Werner responded that they could have a phasing plan worked out.

Commissioner Burress asked Staff what their response would be.

Ms. Day responded in regard to the installation of an irrigation system, she was not familiar with projects where irrigation was a priority, but she recommended it for the south side, not the entire project.  Ms. Day stated she would like to make the builder aware of being conscious of sidewalks being close to structures.

Commissioner Burress moved to approve the Final Development Plan but suggested adding the phrase ‘construction of buildings’ to 3c.

Commissioner Harris seconded.

Commissioner Harkins asked Commissioner Burress to read 3c completely.  Commissioner Burress read 3c.

Commissioner Finkeldei asked if 3b is amended by the Staff memo.

Commissioner Burress replied that the memo did not suggest language.

Commissioner Krebs asked if there were any objections to 3b staying the same.

Commissioner Eichhorn stated he had a hard time voting in favor of 3g because it was not part of code.

Commissioner Haase agreed with Commissioner Eichhorn and stated he was uncomfortable with requiring irrigation, and would like to remove those two conditions.

Commissioner Burress responded that he does not see the issue of revising the development code, it is under the old law and the rule says the standards could be higher.  He stated he did see a case for an irrigation system.

Commissioner Haase stated he respected Commissioner Burress’ point of view, but believed this was a judgment call.

Commissioner Jennings agreed with Commissioner Haase and added racing to plant trees when they were just going to die makes no sense at all, and hoped that common sense would be used.  

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Final Development Plan with a change to condition 3c to add language of “construction of buildings”

Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Eichhorn, to amend the original motion by eliminating conditions 3a and 3g.

Motioned approved 7-3. Commissioners Eichhorn, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins, Jennings and Lawson voted in favor. Commissioners Burress, Harris and Krebs voted in opposition. Student Robb also voted in opposition.

Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Final Development Plan for Aberdeen on Sixth based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions and revision to condition 3b per Staff memo:

1. Prior to the release of the Final Development Plan for issuance of building permits the following documents shall be provided or executed: (Applicant is aware of these requirements)

a.  Submission of public improvement plans to the City Public Works Department for water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater improvements prior to the release of the Final Development Plan for issuance of building permits including:

i. Public improvement plans for the storm drainage system are required to show improvements to the existing channel, and hydraulic openings for both the vehicle and pedestrian bridges.

ii. Vehicular access over drainage must accommodate at least 68,000 lbs.

iii. Show and note the abandonment of the existing sanitary sewer added in the public improvements plans.

b. Recording of the Final Plat with the Register of Deeds Office.

c. Publication of the rezoning ordinances for subject property

d. Provision of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3), per City Code Section 9-903(B), prior to release of the plan for issuance of building permits. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained (Applicant is aware of this requirement).

2. Provision of a separate phasing plan  to ensure circulation space is provided and to reduce impact on residents upon occupancy of development to include the following:

a. Development timing to be coordinated with access/opening of street to W. 6^th Street.

b. Provide detailed phasing and occupancy notes for project. What improvements will be in place before building permits are issued and what will be completed before occupancy.

c. Phasing note should include private elements such as internal drive, curbs, sidewalks, and landscaping as improvements constructed initially.

d. Detail how landscaping will be phased with building and construction improvements.

3. Provision of a revised final development plan to include the following notes and changes:

a. Show and note the installation of an in ground irrigation system to maintain vegetation will be installed along the south side of the development for maintenance purposes.

b. Provision of a note on the face of the Final Development plan that states: “Planting along the south property line shall be installed as part of initial development of the site to provide maximum time allowed for growing” “Installation of landscape materials shall be installed as early as possible into the development (as soon as feasible after construction damage has passed, per phasing plan). [Language per Memo dated 3/26/07 to Commission]”

c. Provision of a note on the face of the Final Development plan that states: “No heavy equipment will be allowed to cross through drainage channel for construction of buildings.”

d. Show added screening along the rear of the garage structure north of the entrance to augment screening from the public right-of-way.

e. Show screening along the east side of Building A to provide buffer for ground floor residents from the public right-of-way.

f. Revise Access Gate detail to include:

i. Extended berming to the east and west sides of the right-of-way that may or may not require some extension of wing walls from the pillars to tie into the grade per Stormwater Engineer’s approval.

ii. Ornamental gate with a center opening rather than a single swing arm crossing.

iii. Maintain pedestrian opening.

iv. A gate feature shall include architectural elements, similar in material to that used for construction of primary buildings at each end of the gate to frame the gate.

v. Installation of the gate shall be provided, at a minimum, concurrently with the construction of the bridge over the drainage easement. The gate shall be functional and operational on or before occupancy of units is allowed.

g. Show and/or note that gutter down spouts should not flow over building sidewalks.

h. Provide elevation of garage structure with applicable material notations.

Motion unanimously approved 10-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.

PC Minutes 3/26/07

ITEM NO. 4:    2008-2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)

Receive suggestions and/or proposals for projects to be included in the 2008-2013 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the City of Lawrence.

Ms. Casey Liebst, City Budget Leader, stated she had contacted many neighborhood associations, expecting to receive public comments.

Commissioner Eichhorn stated Commissioner Finkeldei is the representative on the project.

Commissioner Harkins asked if there was a preliminary list.

Ms. Liebst answered no.

Commissioner Harkins asked Ms. Liebst what the biggest and most costly project was.

Ms. Liebst responded that Parks and Recreation building a field house facility is the most costly, projects that have a cost of more than $50,000.00. The City Manager used the first year of the Plan and the Review Committee reviewed all projects, a selection is made based on priorities. The City Commission could review and approve as appropriate.

Commissioner Eichhorn suggested requesting them to spend time on the operating impacts.

Ms. Liebst stated the Commissioners could forward any ideas to Ms. Stogsdill or herself.

Commissioner Burress suggested the North Lawrence improvement letter could be a project.

Ms. Liebst explained that it is included within the Plan for the review committee.

PC Minutes 3/26/07

ITEM NO. 5:              CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, 867 HIGHWAY 40 (LAP)

CUP-02-04-07: Conditional Use Permit for a Child Care Center at First United Methodist Church, located at 867 Highway 40. Submitted by Tracy Kihm, for First United Methodist Church, property owner of record.

Item 5 was deferred prior to the meeting.

PC Minutes 3/26/07

ITEM NO. 6A:    A TO A-1, 1930 E 1400 ROAD (MKM)

Z-12-30-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 3.34 acres, from A (Agricultural

District) to A-1 (Suburban Home Residential District). The property is located at 1930 E 1400

Road. Submitted by Lewis Phillips, for Husted Management, L.C., property owner of record.

Ms. Mary Miller presented the item. Staff recommended approval.

Mr. Lewis Phillips explained that the rezoning was prompted by the desire to sell the property, but there was no new construction or development planned for the area.

Commissioner Haase asked Mr. Phillips if he had appeared before the Planning Commission when the new subdivision regulations were discussed and believed the Planning Commission had agreed to approve the project.  Mr. Phillips indicated he had been at the meeting.  He had hoped a simple survey would suffice, but found he would need to plat.

Mr. Phillips stated he had sold a portion of property five years ago and the cost of the survey was $500.00.

PUBLIC HEARING

No public comment.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to approve the rezoning request of 3.34 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) 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 conditions:

1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.

Motion carried 9-0-1, Commissioner Finkeldei abstained.  Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.

PC Minutes 3/26/07

ITEM NO. 6B:    PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HUSTED FARMS, 1930 E 1400 ROAD (MKM)

PP-02-02-07: Preliminary Plat for Husted Farms, located at 1930 E 1400 Road. The one lot residential site contains approximately 3.34 acres. Submitted by Lewis Phillips, for Husted Management, L.C., property owner of record.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to approve the Preliminary Plat for Husted Farms based on the findings found in the body of the Staff report subject to the following condition:

1.  Provide justification for the 10’ and 15’ utility easements, or provide a revised plat with 5’ and 7.5’ easements on the side and rear property lines respectively.

Motion carried 9-0-1 Commissioner Finkeldei abstained.  Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative

PC Minutes 3/26/07

ITEM NO. 6C:     FINAL PLAT FOR HUSTED FARMS, 1930 E 1400 ROAD (MKM)

PF-02-03-07: Final Plat for Husted Farms, located at 1930 E 1400 Road. The one lot residential site contains approximately 3.34 acres. Submitted by Lewis Phillips, for Husted Management, L.C., property owner of record.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to approve the Final Plat of Husted Farms and forwarding it to the County Commission with a recommendation for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions: 

1. Provide justification for the 10’ and 15’ utility easements, or provide a revised plat with 5’ and 7.5’ easements on the side and rear property lines respectively.

              2.  Provision of paid property tax receipt.

Motion carried 9-0-1 Commissioner Finkeldei abstained. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.

PC Minutes 3/26/07

ITEM NO. 7:   CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GRASS AIRSTRIP, 593 E 1250 ROAD, BALDWIN CITY (MKM)

CUP-02-02-07: Conditional Use Permit for a grass airstrip, located at 593 E 1250 Road, Baldwin City.  Submitted by James and Barbara Butell, property owners of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Mary Miller introduced the item. 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Applicant did not present, but was available to answer questions.

PUBLIC HEARING

No public comment.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Harkins stated he was trying to recall a similar project that was before the Commission prior to this one.

Ms. Miller stated the Board of County Commissioners had instructed Staff to draft Standards for private airstrips in the County.  These Standards would be based off of the FAA standards.

Commissioner Burress asked about the approach zone from the north, as it was not shown on the aerial. 

Mr. Jim Butell the applicant responded that there were no structures to the north of the runway.

Commissioner Krebs asked Ms. Miller if in the future there would be more Land Use Guidelines along with Aviation Standards regarding this type of applicant.

Ms. Miller stated there was nothing about land use in the FAA literature.  She stated she would include Land Use consideration in the Standards.

Commissioner Burress stated the drawing appeared to assume the landing would be from the south and asked if there were times that landing from the north would be necessary.

Mr. Butell the applicant responded the landing direction depends on the wind, but there were no objects to the north of the runway except Zarco being one half of a mile away.

Commissioner Harkins stated he recalled the previous applicant identified more than one strip in the County without permits and asked if there would be more CUP’s for airstrips as a result.

Ms. Miller responded that Keith Dabney had been researching the issue and this CUP request was a result of that research.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Lawson, seconded by Commissioner Harkin, to recommend approval of CUP-02-02-07, a Conditional Use Permit for a grass airstrip at 593 E 1250 Road and forwarding it to the County Commission with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings of fact stated in the body of the Staff report and 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 (Calendar Year 2012).

b. The permit will expire at the end of 10 years (Calendar Year 2017), unless an application for renewal is approved by the local governing body.

2) Provision of a copy of the Federal Aviation Administration determination for the airstrip resulting from the review required under FAA Regulation 14CFR Part 157.

If FAA determination is other than ‘no objections’ the CUP will be rescinded. The CUP will be reinstated if a ‘conditional determination’ was made by the FAA when the applicant meets the FAA conditions.

Motion carried 10-0 unanimously. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.

Commissioner Krebs stated she would feel more comfortable with Standards to help guide Staff and Commissioners.

Commissioner Eichhorn commented that the Standards would likely be included with Rural Zoning Ordinances.

PC Minutes 3/26/07

ITEM NO. 8:        CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CLINTON COVE SUBDIVISION NO.   2 MINI-STORAGE, NW CORNER OF N 1415 AND E 900 ROADS (SLD)

CUP-02-03-07: Conditional Use Permit for Clinton Cove Subdivision No. 2 mini-storage; located on the NW corner of N 1415 and E 900 Roads.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Souvenirs, LLC, property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Sandra Day introduced the item.  Staff recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit CUP-02-03-07 for a mini storage and forwarding it to the County Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact stated in the body of the Staff report and subject to the following conditions:

1. Submission and approval of a photometric Plan per 19-4.34 (4)
2. Provision of evergreen trees along the west property line spaced a minimum distance of 50’ on center (14 trees)

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mr. Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, discussed details for the design. Staff had provided a report that recommended 2 conditions, photometric plan, and more berm coverage, which the applicant was willing to conform with.  Mr. Herndon explained the efforts of the new owners of Clinton Cove (purchased in June 2006 in open auction), the gas station canopy had been removed, as well as debris, rocks, tires, and piles of scrap fence had also been removed.  The new owner eliminated illegal sales of contraband and stolen property.

Mr. Herndon clarified general note 15, that potential future uses were likely to be marine type sales, a service department, jet ski and party barge storage.  The office will also have a 24 hour manager.

Commissioner Harris questioned Mr. Herndon asking if he had suggested wording for changing #15.

Mr. Herndon responded that he would like to offer the following, perhaps add a note to the effect ‘boat, jet ski, marine vehicles and recreational vehicle repair may be allowed outside the temporary storage facility’, pending approval of a separate CUP or site plan application.

Ms. Stogsdill suggested that if the note was directly from the recent self storage text amendment, the suggested language would be better as a separate note.

Commissioner Eichhorn stated he believed 50’ between trees seemed large, and asked if a 12’ range might be better.

Mr. Herndon objected to the 12’ on center, and stated a 12’ on center Standard could not be found any where in the City.

Commissioner Eichhorn stated the trees were not designed to hide things.

Mr. Herndon again objected to the 12’ on center but agreed to 40’. 

Commissioner Krebs asked if the current language covered occupancy of the site.

Ms. Stogsdill explained that it meant caretaker residence would be allowed on site.

Commissioner Krebs asked Ms. Stogsdill if she suggested that as a separate note.

Ms. Stogsdill answered yes.

Commissioner Harkins asked if the future intent was to have a repair facility for boats.

Mr. Herdon explained that it meant the mini storage.

Commissioner Harkins asked if this included the unit.

Mr. Herndon suggested using the phrase ‘activities which are allowed outside of the storage facility may include…’  Currently it states, the entire 19 acres are restricted to no repairs.

Commissioner Harkins asked to allow it there.

Ms. Stogsdill explained the reason for the note is for an enforcement tool to prohibit someone from setting up shop inside a storage unit.

Commissioner Harkins asked if the building (former convenience store) was existing and could someone take that building and use it as a repair facility.

Ms. Stogsdill answered yes.

Commissioner Haase commented that the only screen proposed on the north side of the State Park was a chain link fence.

Mr. Herndon answered that there was nothing else being proposed, it conformed to the previous CUP requirements and the Standards in the new text amendments.

Commissioner Haase stated that this was a sensitive location and practically a gateway to Clinton reservoir.  He suggested it would be a good idea to add landscaping or trees.

Mr. Herndon responded that uniform enforcement and rules should apply to all people and to isolate this project would be unfair.

Commissioner Haase asked Staff if they were inclined to think the fence on the east side should be landscaped.

Ms. Day responded it is the Commissions’ purview to request more landscaping. 

Commissioner Lawson asked Mr. Herndon if he would be willing to plant trees on the west line closer than 50’ centers.

Mr. Herndon replied that 12’ seemed unrealistic and extreme, but he remained open to additional landscaping.  To the east of the fence was the water main and not a lot of space for the owner to start landscaping.  Over time the fence would go away and there would be restaurants, marine sales, offices, etc. and those 19 acres would not stay that way forever.  The site had been cleaned up, the neighbors complaints addressed, and owner is in conformance.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Price Banks spoke on behalf of Windover community, which owns all private property adjacent to the property being discussed.  They were concerned about drainage problems at this site.  Windover had plans to develop the property in the future and 50’ on center is not dense and they would like more screening to protect residential property.

Mr. Stan Hernly, architect on the Windover project to the north and west, wanted to discuss the south side, which had a natural existing barrier with trees and this proposal would take out most of the existing tree line.

STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS

Ms. Day commented that if the Commission was to pursue additional landscaping along the south, the applicant showed electrical lines overhead, so the landscaping needed to be limited in height.

Commissioner Harris asked if drainage issues had been considered.

Ms. Day answered no and encouraged property owners to work together to resolve these issues as she was only made aware of it recently and had not spoken with County Public Works.

Mr. Herndon responded that he knew of no fill operations that had taken place on the site or of any issues from neighbors of problems.

Commissioner Jennings commented on the screening issue on the south side and how much the cost would be for land set back and admitted the fence bothered him more than tearing out the trees.

Commissioner Jennings stated that any commercial building had the right to be seen.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Burress commented the reason for CUP’s was there was no way to write clear cut requirements, each case would be different. This particular site was an eye sore in a critical place in the community.  He suggested stronger screening all the way around.

Commissioner Haase stated he has had experience screening chain link fence and recommended planting upright evergreens on 8’ centers and did not think it would be a financial burden.  He proposed to convey the notion that they want to see a well thought out screening plan and maybe working with other land owners.

Commissioner Harkins commented that it is not unusual around lakes to have boat storage and this project was an enhancement to the corner because it is currently ugly.  There was storage in the area now with no screening.  If they require planted screening on the south side of the project, it may have to be redesigned and he would hate to see that.

Mr. Herndon stated that a deferral at this point would be unfair and unnecessary.

Mr. Andy Kopp, owner of the property said he too would like a resolution tonight, he concurred with Commissioner Harkins.  He stated there was landscaping and sod on the property down to the lake.  Mr. Kopp stated he would be fine with 25’ centers but 8’ to 12’ would be too tight.  If the neighbor would stagger additional trees with their development, it would result in 12’ centers.  Mr. Kopp acknowledged the site being an eye sore and he would continue to make improvements.

Commissioner Burress asked if the applicant was implying the cost of screening should be shared with the neighboring property owners.

Ms. Day replied that typically the burden had been placed on commercial sites, not residential.

Commissioner Burress asked Mr. Kopp to clarify ‘if the Corps of Engineers wanted screening they could put it in’.

Mr. Kopp responded if he went from 50’ to 25’, which is twice as dense as Staff had asked for, the other side could be staggered, and yes he welcomed the Corps of Engineers to plant more trees on the park side.

Commissioner Lawson stated he supports Commissioner Haase. The screening situation warrants more design and study and he would like to see a plan that had a better result.

Commissioner Harkins asked if the project architect could suggest some ideas because the overhead power line will severely limit the type of screening that could be placed at the site.  To impose screening, it seemed they would need to go back to the drawing board.

Commissioner Haase suggested redbud trees that do not grow very high could be used.  To redesign the project would cause a financial burden, but there are solutions and he would be in favor of deferring.

Commissioner Burress agreed with Commissioner Haase and added there was money involved and the applicant would prefer it not be deferred.

Ms. Day asked if the applicant could propose a screening plan tomorrow and bring the discussion back to the Planning Commission on Wednesday March 28^th.

Mr. Herndon agreed that he could get the plans to Ms. Day the next morning showing 25’ center trees.  He stressed time was essential to Mr. Kopp.

Commissioner Harkins said that was reasonable.

Mr. Herndon stated that he only had control over the property he could control, if Staff wanted to investigate, they could, but he could not ask the Corps of Engineers if he could plant trees on the park property.

Commissioner Lawson stated the Commission could only control the screening of this project.

Commissioner Haase encouraged the applicant to come back with something that would knock their socks off, and to be prepared to lobby for their vote.

Commissioner Burress stated that if he sees a proposal, he also wanted to see drawings of what it will look like in five years.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Harkins, to defer the item until Wednesday March 28^th, 2007 to receive landscaping proposals.

Motion carried 10-0 unanimously. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.

PC Minutes 3/26/07

ITEM NO. 9:        SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS CELLULAR TOWER, 2101 WAKARUSA DRIVE (MKM)

SUP-01-01-07: Special Use Permit for a Nextel Communications cellular tower, located at 2101 Wakarusa Drive. Submitted by Ward Development Services and WFI, Inc., for the City of Lawrence, property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Mary Miller presented the item. 

Commissioner Krebs commented that the Commission was of the opinion that this type of item should be approved administratively.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mr. Brian Smith attorney on behalf of Nextel, commented that during the last application process he notified all of the neighbors in the area of a meeting to discuss the tower, and no one attended.  He mailed letters to all neighbors in the area and received one response from a neighbor suggesting the tower be made to look like a tree.  Mr. Smith stated the tower would be to the west of the existing tower, and the driveway would come off the south side of both towers, which would be an improvement.  The existing tower is currently accessed through the City Water Treatment Facility and this is a security concern.

Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the finish of the new tower could be made to look like the existing one.

Mr. Smith stated Nextel could accommodate the request and would try to make the finish of the new tower as close as possible to the old tower.

Commissioner Burress commented that he does not think the tree was a stupid idea and asked why antennas had to be so ugly.

Mr. Smith stated there are variations with these types of towers, but the design is driven by technology.

Commissioner Harris asked if the neighborhood had changed at all to make a difference in approving.

Ms. Miller stated that she had not seen any change except for the Water Treatment Plant being enlarged.

Mr. Smith added that the fire station had been built.

PUBLIC HEARING

No public comment.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to recommend approval of SUP-01-01-07, a Special Use Permit for the construction of a tower and placement of antenna and ground mounted equipment at 2101 Wakarusa Drive and forward 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. Execution of a land lease agreement with the City of Lawrence, prior to the release of the site plan for issuance of a building permit.

3. Completion of the independent review per City Code section 20-529 confirming that the applicant had met the Burden of Proof regarding co-location prior to consideration of the Special Use Permit by the City Commission.

4. Provision of a revised site plan with the following changes:

a. Book and Page number for recorded access/utility easement referenced on the plan

b. Note added referencing applicant’s agreement with City to mount security camera equipment and communication equipment on the tower for the City facilities on the site.

c. Note stating; “The tower must either have a galvanized finished or be painted gray or light blue per Section 20-529(2) (v) of the Development Code.”

d. Note stating “The tower construction will comply with Section 20-529 of the City Code so that if a failure does occur, the tower will collapse into itself.”

Motion carried 10-0 unanimously.  Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.

PC Minutes 3/26/07

______________________________________________________________________

MISCELLANEOUS NEW OR OLD BUSINESS

MISC. ITEM NO. 1:  AMEND UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP)

Revise budget to allocate funds to consulting contract for completion of the Long Range Transportation Plan, T2030.

Conduct a public hearing to consider an amendment to 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.

Mr. Paul Patterson presented the item. Planning Staff recommended approval of amendment to the 2007 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and transmittal to the Kansas Department of Transportation. Staff also recommends that the Planning Director or designee be authorized to execute necessary planning grant agreements and planning process certifications.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei to approve the Unified Planning Work Program amendment.

Motion carried 10-0 unanimously.  Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.

MISC. ITEM NO. 2:

Commissioner Harkins asked if he had heard or read that the City was hiring someone to do a study.

Commissioner Haase asked if it was in reference to the Letter from the North Lawrence improvement study.

Ms. Stogsdill answered that Staff does not comment on those.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Recess 9:30pm.

PC Minutes 3/28/07

_______________________________________________________________________

Reconvene March 28, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.

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

Staff present: Stogsdill, Day, Pool, Rexwinkle, L. Wagner and Brown

_______________________________________________________________________

BEGIN PUBLIC HEARING (MARCH 28, 2007):

COMMUNICATIONS

Memo from staff – item 8, diagrams & aerials provided by applicant

Memo from staff – item 12

EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST

·  ex parte -

Commissioner Haase talked to Tim Herndon regarding landscaping for Item 8 (CUP-02-03-07) after the 3/26/07 Planning Commission meeting.

Commissioner Burress received a phone call regarding Item 12 (SUP-01-02-07) but he did not discuss any details with the caller.

· No abstentions were declared

· There were no deferral requests to consider

PC Minutes 3/28/07

ITEM NO. 8:              CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CLINTON COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 2 MINI-STORAGE, NW CORNER OF N 1415 AND E 900 ROADS (SLD)

CUP-02-03-07: Conditional Use Permit for Clinton Cove Subdivision No. 2 mini-storage; located on the NW corner of N 1415 and E 900 Roads. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Souvenirs, LLC, property owner of record. (Continued discussion from 3/26/07 Planning Commission meeting)

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Sandra Day summarized the new proposed landscaping. The focus of the review since the Monday Planning Commission meeting was to look at further landscape screening. Staff recommended the landscaping be located on the exterior of the fence. Ms. Day went over the revised Staff Memo that she gave to the Planning Commissioners prior to the meeting.

Revised Conditions of Approval:

3. Submission and approval of a photometric Plan per 19-4.34 (4)

4. Provision of evergreen trees along the west property line spaced a minimum distance of 50’ on center (14 trees)

a. Provision of a revised landscape plan to show plantings along the east, south and west property lines.

b. Planting installation shall conform to section 19A-4(10) with regard to installation specifications of size of materials. Trees shall be a minimum of 6’ in height.

c. Fence shall be relocated to the back of curb to allow for maximum planting space between the fence and the property line along the south and west sides .

d. The location of landscape material shall be planted on the exterior of the fence

5. Provision of confirmation from the Douglas County Zoning Department with regard to compliance of existing land use of the subject property prior to release of the site plan for issuance of building permits.

6. Revision of the proposed site plan to show all exterior storage areas and compliance with a minimum 50’ setback along the north  and west property lines.

7. Provision of a revised site plan to more clearly show the existing uses and how existing uses will be altered, changed or relocated on the site as a result of the approval of the Conditional Use Permit.

Staff provided the following comments regarding the revised landscaping proposal:

Approval of a site plan for boat and RV storage in the 1980’s included screening requirements as well as a provision that if the landscape material died then slats would need to be added to the fencing. The proposed landscape materials have been noted by Clinton Lake Park staff and the City Parks staff as being of a more exotic variety. Parks staff stated: The arborvitae may have problems with winter burning out in this exposed location. They need semi-moist well drained soil. Dry exposed sites will result in stunted browned out planting [that become] unsightly.

Staff from the Corps of Engineers and the Manager of the State Park both stated that they fully support planting on the park property and that they have the authority to allow such and would be open to coordination of an on-site meeting to address planting.

The proposed plan shows the installation of landscape materials (trees) at 3.5’ tall. Minimum County Code standards require installation of minimum 6’ to 8’ height.

The standards established for self storage facilities require security fencing (proposed on site plan) and screening. Screening options include view reducing fencing (slats in fencing), berming, and landscaping. Landscaping should be planted on the exterior of the fencing to provide the “good neighbor” policy to screening and break up the visual mass of the proposed buildings.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mr. Tim Herndon stated that on the East side of the property was an existing fence which had been in place for about 25 years and had slats in it. It was located on the property line which leaves no room for landscaping. The South edge of the property has overhead power lines which would restrict the location of landscaping. The Western edge can have landscaping on the exterior or interior of a fence. Mr. Herndon felt that on the East side of the property it seemed appropriate to put landscaping inside the fence which would then make it appropriate to remove the slats on the fence. He went on to say that the Development Code states the fence could be opaque. Mr. Herndon suggested the Green Giant arborvitae be used for landscaping since it can grow in excess of 25’ in height. Mr. Herndon went over 3 possible landscaping options:

Plan A  Green Giant at 50’ center

Plan B  Green Giant at 20’ center

Plan C  Trees planted at 20’ on center

All species he suggested were disease resistant and recommended for harsh Kansas weather.

Mr. Herndon would also like the conditions adopted from the Staff Memo and the two conditions from the Monday night Planning Commission discussion, which would allow service repairs on site and a caretaker to live on the premises. He would also like the landscaping to be on the interior of the fence.

Commissioner Krebs noted that on the National Arborvitae information that Mr. Herndon gave the Commissioners recommended that the Green Giant tree should be 6.5’ on center.

Mr. Herndon stated that the trees at maturity would be 8’ wide so that 6.5’ on center trees would run into each other.

Commissioner Lawson asked if Staff recommend landscaping outside the fence?

Ms. Day stated that was correct, Staff recommended landscaping on the outside of the fence to be visually pleasing to passerby’s. She went on to say that on the East side the property the owner would have to move the fence in a little to allow room for landscaping on the outside. She also noted that the fence shown would be topped with barbed wire.

Commissioner Haase wanted to know if any screening was proposed on the North edge of the property?

Mr. Herndon explained that the North edge of the property had recently been rezoned to County Commercial so screening was not required.

Commissioner Harkins asked if the fence was already in place?

Mr. Herndon replied yes, the fence on the Eastern side of the property was already in place.

Commissioner Harkins inquired about the expense of moving the fence.

Mr. Herndon felt that the landscaping could still be enjoyed on the interior of the fence.

Commissioner Jennings stated that he had heard suggestions that the North side of the ground could have Marine sales in the future. He inquired about the fence on the East side being temporary (removed upon redevelopment).

Mr. Herndon said yes, that would probably be the case but that sewer was not available to the property. The fence would most likely be in place for another 4-6 years. The facility would be low traffic and would not create any waste water which would allow development of the property prior to urban services.

Commissioner Haase mentioned a previous comment that Mr. Herndon made about it being inappropriate to plant trees on the South side of the property because of power lines.

Mr. Herndon clarified that it would be inappropriate to plant trees directly under the power lines.

Commissioner Haase asked if that would be possible?

Mr. Herndon replied yes, there would be flex room in which to plan the landscaping.

Ms. Day stated that the County code language regarding the size of landscape materials was “shall be.”

Mr. Herndon said that the landscaping is not required by the code so “shall” should not apply.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Stan Hernly said the East side of the property and fence are located in the public R-O-W. He believes the landscaping would be better on the outside of fence so the attractive side of it would be facing the public.

Mr. Bill Sims, resident of Lawrence, has grown arborvitae and lost half of them in a snow storm. He said that they tend to grow through chain link fence. He feels that the landscaping on the inside of the fence would be easier to maintain. He also stated that a chain link fence could be camouflaged by painting it green.

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Applicant had no closing comments.

STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS

Staff had no closing comments.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Krebs summarized the items that needed to be discussed:

· Location of the fence in terms of landscaping

· Tree types and plan

· Setbacks on property sides

Commissioner Jennings stated that he and his brother own property that abuts a mini-storage facility. He felt that if landscaping were inside of the fence then parking would not be allowed up to the fence, therefore trucks would not hit the fence (which would reduce maintenance to the fence).

Commissioner Burress questioned Staff if they agreed with the 50’ setback on all sides of the property?

Ms. Day stated that there was a condition under commercial zoning that talked about exterior storage. A side setback in that district would be 50’.

Commissioner Burress asked if that setback would also be required on the front?

Ms. Day replied yes.

Commissioner Krebs asked if a 50’ setback was needed on all sides?

Ms. Day responded yes, 50’ on all sides.

Commissioner Burress asked that Staff comment on security issues of the fence. He felt that putting the fence on the inside of the landscaping would be the best security for the caretaker.

Ms. Day stated there was a screening requirement, that the CUP said the applicant must submit a Site Plan and under that section is where landscaping details are found.

Commissioner Eichhorn asked if fencing was required around boat storage? Fred’s Boat Storage that was seen by the Planning Commission a few months back was not require to put up a fence.

Ms. Stogsdill recalled that Staff recommended berming and landscaping for the boat storage.

Commissioner Eichhorn said that on center planting was not required for the boat storage project.

Ms. Stogsdill agreed that it was not required for the boat storage but the mini-storage project would be around a major highway, residences, and state park that have views.

Commissioner Burress questioned the 3’ versus 6’ planting height of landscaping. He wanted to know how likely would a 3’ versus a 6’ would survive and what the cost difference between the two would be.

Mr. Herndon stated that the arborvitae would grow to approximately 10’ in 5 years. The cost differential would be about $55 per shrub and about $100 per tree difference including labor. 6’ would cost double the price of 3’. The survival rate would have to do with how they were installed and maintained.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Eichhorn, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Clinton Cove Subdivision No. 2 mini-storage and forward 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 the revised conditions:

1. Submission and approval of a photometric Plan per 19-4.34 (4)

2. Provision of evergreen trees along the west property line spaced a minimum distance of 50’ on center (14 trees)

a. Provision of a revised landscape plan to show plantings along the east, south and west property lines.

b. Planting installation shall conform to section 19A-4(10) with regard to installation specifications of size of materials. Trees shall be a minimum of 6’  3.5 feet in height.

c. Fence shall be relocated to the back of curb to allow for maximum planting space between the fence and the property line along the south and west sides.

d. The location of landscape material shall be planted on the exterior of the fence.

3. Provision of confirmation from the Douglas County Zoning Department with regard to compliance of existing land use of the subject property prior to release of the site plan for issuance of building permits.
4. Revision of the proposed site plan to show all exterior storage areas and compliance with a minimum 50’ setback along the north  and west property lines.
5. Provision of a revised site plan to more clearly show the existing uses and how existing uses will be altered, changes or relocated on the site as a result of the approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
6. Caretaker/Manager residence is permitted as part of this CUP.
7. Marine Sales/Services are allowed elsewhere on the site with approval of a future site plan or CUP subject to uses allowed in the zoning district.

Motion carried unanimously, 10-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.

PC Minutes 3/28/07

ITEM NO. 10A:         RS10 AND UR TO RMO, 3015 W 31^ST  (JCR)

Z-01-02-07:    A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 7.73 acres, from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) and UR (Urban Reserve) to RMO (Multi-Dwelling Residential-Office). The property is located at 3015 W. 31^st Street. Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers, Inc., for Cherry Manor, Inc., property owner of record. This item is related to PP-01-01-07.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle presented the item. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning.

Items 10A and 10B were heard together.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mr. Darron Ammann, with Bartlett & West on behalf of DCCCA and the applicant, supported Staffs recommendations.

Mr. Bruce Beal, Director of DCCCA, hopes to move the existing First Step women and children facility from 4^th Street and Florida Street to 3015 W 31^st Street.

Commissioner Haase asked staff if any of the property was annexed after the floodplain regulations were adopted?

Ms. Stogsdill replied no.

Commissioner Finkeldei asked about the conditions of approval pertaining to the outdoor shelter.

Mr. Rexwinkle stated that the shelter would not be on the property being platted, however both properties are currently under the same ownership. There was a possibility of the land with the shelter on it being sold to a new owner which would not allow legal use of the shelter.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Bill Sims was concerned about outcry from neighbors. He felt there were many women and children on the street that were not helped by DCCCA. He expressed that neighbors were concerned about their property value going down. He was also concerned about how the project would help the community in general. He thought it might be better heard by City Commission because LCS are helping the exact people that DCCCA does.

Ms. Stogsdill stated that the Rezoning is requested to permit rehabilitation centers which are defined differently than transient or homeless shelters. A rehabilitation center can be allowed by right when rezoned to RMO. DCCCA believes they would be able to use the building as is so there may not be a need for a Site Plan.

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Ammann requested a recommendation of approval and stated that no building additions would be added.

STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS

Staff had no closing comments.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Finkeldei stated that he served on the Alcohol Tax Advisory Board that distributes money to agencies and that the First Step house does receive funding from this Board. He went on to say that First Step had to give a yearly report to the Board and he was very encouraged by the expansion of the program.

Commissioner Harris inquired about transportation for the residents.

Mr. Bruce Beal stated that most people within the facility would not own a vehicle, so public transportation would be used or the facility staff would transport them.

Commissioner Harris was concerned about the road width and busy traffic on 31st Street and felt that the danger to pedestrians should be considered by the city.

Mr. Beal stated he hoped to have a bus stop station added to the area.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the rezoning of approximately 6.72 acres from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) District and 1.01 acres from UR (Urban Reserve) District to  RMO (Multi-Dwelling Residential - Office) District and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based upon the findings of fact outlined in the staff report and subject to the following condition:

1. Recordation of an approved final plat at the Register of Deeds.

Motion carried unanimously, 10-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.

PC Minutes 3/28/07

ITEM NO. 10B:         PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 1^ST STEP FACILITY, 3015 W 31^ST  (JCR)

PP-01-01-07:  A Preliminary Plat for 1^st Step Facility, located at 3015 W 31^st Street. Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers, Inc., for Cherry Manor Inc. c/o Charles P. Pomeroy, property owner of record. This item is related to Z-01-02-07.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat for First Step Facility and forwarding to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and right-of-way, subject to the following conditions:

1. Revision of the plat to include the following:

a. Provide a note on the preliminary plat noting that the outdoor picnic shelter, though not a part of this plat, may be used as a site amenity.

b. Add a note on the preliminary plat that states “Outdoor picnic shelter shall not be modified, altered or expanded until the property it is located upon is platted in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations.  Only routine maintenance shall be permitted.”

2. Record a document with the Register of Deeds, Book and Page Number noted on the preliminary plat, which grants use of the outdoor picnic shelter.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to approve the Preliminary Plat for 1^st Step Facility and forward to City Commission for acceptance of easements and right-of-way, subject to the conditions listed above.

Motion carried unanimously, 10-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.

PC Minutes 3/28/07

ITEM NO. 11:           PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CAMSON VILLAS, 430 EISENHOWER DRIVE (SLD/LAW)

PDP-02-01-07: Preliminary Development Plan for Camson Villas, located at 430 Eisenhower Drive. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for Mallard Homes, property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Sandra Day presented the item. Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Development Plan and setback reductions.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, agreed with the Staff Report.

Commissioner Eichhorn stated that the variances should be extraordinary and he needed to be convinced for setback reductions.

Mr. Werner stated that the property was in a unique situation because it abuts a park and the detention feature which made the development area oddly shaped. The setback reductions would allow additional space between buildings.

Commissioner Eichhorn stated that there was enough room to do that and asked if it was purely for aesthetic reasons?

Mr. Werner replied, yes.

Commissioner Haase said that Ms. Day had referenced variances and wondered if she had meant waivers?

Ms. Day responded, yes.

Commissioner Burress asked if the 4-plexes were side by side or stacked?

Mr. Werner responded, both.

PUBLIC HEARING

No public comment.

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Applicant had no closing comments.

STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS

Staff had no closing comments.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Burress wanted to know if the property could be subdivided and each unit put on separate property and sell them off?

Mr. Werner said he thought it might be possible under townhouse provisions but would be difficult. He did not think that they could meet the requirements to replat.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Lawson to approve the setback reductions as follows:

1. Reduction of the east peripheral setback from 35’ to 27.5’ for Building A; and
2. Reduction of the east peripheral setback from 35’ to 15’ for the office/manager’s unit and storage building located at the north end of the development. 

Motion carried unanimously, 10-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.

Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for Camson Villas based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:

1.  Approval of proposed setback reductions;

2.  Provision of a note on the face of the preliminary development plan stating that it is a single phase development and including projected timing for completion of the development;

3.  Revise sidewalk and provide ramp at a 90 degree angle at the corners of building F and G so that pedestrians are not directed into the parking lot;

4.  Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to show additional screening and landscaping along the east property line of the office building; and

5.  Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that states “No patio or balcony spaces shall be allowed in the peripheral setback area along the east side of the development.” 

Motion carried unanimously, 10-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.

PC Minutes 3/28/07

ITEM NO. 12:           SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SHELTER, 944 KENTUCKY STREET (LAP)

SUP-01-02-07: Special Use Permit for the Lawrence Community Shelter, located at 944 Kentucky Street. Submitted by the Lawrence Community Shelter, Inc., for James Dunn, property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Lisa Pool introduced the item.

The applicant for the Lawrence Community Shelter Special Use Permit has requested that staff consider a five-year, instead of a one-year SUP approval, and revised language for original conditions #3 and #5. Regarding condition #3, the applicant would prefer not to detail funding options for an alternate shelter location due to fundraising and privacy issues. Concerning condition #5, the applicant has expressed concern about adding six new staff persons due to funding and space limitations.

Regarding the approval time-frame, planning staff continues to recommend a one-year approval due to the unique nature of the land use, findings from the police report, and information in the shelter report. Concerning condition #3, staff has revised the language to require less specific information for an alternate site, while still requiring information substantiating pursuit of an alternate site, including a funding plan. Original conditions #3 and #4 are now conditions #3a and #3b. Original condition #5 requiring six additional staff members has been revised to require additional staff, as determined by the LCS director, to meet safety needs. Staff continues to recommend that the full-time paid security guard be hired. Lastly, “should” has been replaced by “shall” within each condition, as “shall” indicates a mandatory requirement.

The revised conditions are as follows:

1. Within 45 days of SUP approval by the City Commission, LCS shall submit a signed Good Neighbor Agreement with signatures of the LCS staff and at least 15 neighbors.

2. If the shelter remains in its current location within one year, an application for SUP renewal shall be submitted prior to the one-year expiration date.

3. If a renewal application is submitted within one year, the following items shall be submitted with the application materials:

a. Information supporting a new shelter location, including the viability of the new location, i.e. a funding plan.

b. An annual report, which includes a log of police calls (with type of call noted), a log of guests who obtain jobs and housing, numbers of guests who utilize the day and nighttime services, and an update on the on-going commitment to communicate with the surrounding neighborhood and to address concerns of neighbors.

4. The addition of staff member(s) to meet guest, neighborhood, and public safety needs (refer to attached LCS report for specific staff recommendations). At a minimum, one full-time paid security guard, i.e. outside monitor, shall be hired. The maximum occupancy level shall not be exceeded with the addition of new staff members.

5. A signed Site Plan Performance Agreement shall be submitted.

6. The site plan shall be revised to show the following changes:

a. Inclusion of a note which states that, if the shelter remains in its current location by renewal time next year, the items in conditions #2, #3a, and #3b will be submitted (the specific items shall be detailed on the site plan).

b. Revision of the UPR expiration date to reflect the new SUP expiration date and replacement of “UPR” with “SUP”.

c. Revision of the zoning data to note that the site’s new zoning designation is RMO (Multi-Dwelling Residential-Office) District.

d. Revision of the staffing section to list the numbers of current day and nighttime staff, including both full and part-time staff. If staffing additions are approved as part of this SUP, these staff members shall be included as part of this new staff count.

e. Inclusion of the following note: “On February 15, 2007, the Historic Resources Commission approved the LCS Special Use Permit (DR-01-06-07), subject to conditions.”

f. Removal of the 18’ by 21’ by 10’4” metal canopy and picket fence, unless the City Commission grants an appeal of the Historic Resources Commission’s determination for this structure to be removed.

g. Notation stating that the Good Neighbor Agreement and LCS policies shall be referred to for additional provisions governing the use and maintenance of the LCS property.

Action: Planning Staff recommended a one-year approval of the LCS Special Use Permit and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval and the ordinance for adoption on first reading, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report, subject to the above-referenced revised conditions.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mr. Loring Henderson, Director of LCS, asked the Planning Commission for approval of the Special Use Permit. He stated that they have gotten 23 signatures for the Good Neighbor Agreement, which would meet condition #1. The shelter generally agreed with Staff’s recommendations, except condition #3a regarding providing information on a new shelter location. He said that this condition treated LCS as a stand-alone site. He was also concerned about condition #4 which would mandate a full-time security guard. The LCS Board of Directors had already reviewed the addition of staff members to meet safety needs and have hired a part time person. He feels this is a decision that should be left up to the LCS Directors because of funding constraints. He suggested the wording be changed to half-time instead of full-time because that is what LCS could afford.

He gave a summary of the services that LCS provides and what they hope to achieve in the future.

He would also like the SUP approval changed to 5 years instead of the annual renewal because they have a small staff and it takes a lot of his time to renew annually.

Commissioner Harkins inquired if the shelter had programming requirements that would be imposed by some type of licensing agency and wanted to know if they operate under some sort of higher framework.

Mr. Henderson responded that the shelter does not operate under a regulatory framework, but that he has licensed social workers on his staff.

Commissioner Eichhorn wanted examples of providers and agencies that the shelter works closely with.

Mr. Henderson gave examples such as Housing Practitioners Panel, Interfaith Initiative, EKAN, Salvation Army, LEO Center, Heartland Medial Clinic, Lawrence Memorial Hospital, Police Dept, SRS, Social Security, etc.

Commissioner Lawson wanted to know if the definition of a full-time security guard was 24 hours a day.

Ms. Pool stated that a full-time security guard would be considered 40 hours a week.

Mr. Henderson stated that they had already hired a security guard to work 20 hours a week with a flexible schedule so that the occupants would not know when to expect the security.

Commissioner Finkeldei wanted to know if the Good Neighbor Agreement was defined by a radius?

Ms. Pool said that it was not defined, but she thought it would be the Oread Neighborhood.

Mr. Henderson said that they had developed post cards for the Downtown area that had the shelter phone number on it for people to contact them with any complaints or concerns. This postcard would be distributed on Massachusetts Street within the next week.

Commissioner Lawson stated that Mr. Henderson referenced the amount of time it takes to prepare annual SUP reports and wondered if he knew an estimate of how many staff hours might be involved.

Mr. Henderson replied no, that preparation of the application is intermixed with daily work, so he could not say for sure how many hours were spent on it annually.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Ray Urbanek, Police Captain, reported that the Police took 77 reports during 2005 and 99 reports in 2006. There were 307 calls for service in 2005 and 375 in 2006. He stated that as a member of the Police Department he had found the LCS staff very helpful in a assisting with problems.

Commissioner Eichhorn asked how long he thought each Police report took to write?

Mr. Urbanek replied that most routine reports take about 30-45 minutes to write.

Commissioner Krebs asked Mr. Urbanek if the Police found it beneficial to have have the homeless population in one location, as opposed to spread around the City.

Mr. Urbanek stated that he has been in Lawrence for over 22 years and he thinks there are more homeless people now which generates a higher volume of Police activity in one area, but he can not think of advantages of either situation.

Commissioner Harkins asked Mr. Urbanek why he thought there was a dramatic increase in incidences at LCS.

Mr. Urbanek stated that the amount of people in the shelter might make a difference. He has seen a rise in Police calls in all areas of the City. In 2005 the entire City Police reports totaled 14,483 and in 2006 there were over 17,000.

Commissioner Lawson wanted to know if the presence of a security guard at the shelter would likely reduce the number of Police calls.

Mr. Urbanek felt that a security capacity may be able to eliminate some problems and would probably be helpful, especially in being a witness for when the Police would be dispatched to the location. Security guards are not authorized to do everything that Police officers are, though.

Ms. Julia Davidson, student at Bishop Seabury Academy, volunteered at LCS and never felt threatened by the staff or the guests. The downtown is the heart of the homeless population.

Ms. Laura Green, with the Community Cooperation Committee, lives at 941 Kentucky and works from her home. She can see the shelter from her window at home and thinks that the Police are called quite a bit because the shelter staff are doing their job by calling the Police. She warns against correlating crime with the shelter. She would like to see the SUP extended for at least 3 years.

Mr. Kent Hayes, serves on LCS Board, has been educated on issues of homelessness. The work that is being done at LCS is amazing. They have many dedicated volunteers and staff. The LCS is one of the most effective per dollar programs that he had seen over his entire career of working in community services. He felt that many of the problems caused Downtown are by the mentally ill living on the streets.

Ms. Brandy Sutton, neighbor of LCS, provided pictures to the Planning Commission showing evidence of issues at the shelter. She did not feel that LCS has met the 4 criteria for the SUP.  She also questioned compliance with previous conditions, specifically those related with the Good Neighbor Agreement, site maintenance, and log of banned guests.

Mr. Bill Sims, referred to the pictures that Ms. Sutton showed and stated that the situation was worse than the pictures show. He stayed at the shelter for 2 years and he described it as hell. He felt that the loitering in the alley way and parking lot was not the responsibility of LCS, but rather the Police’s problem. He went on to say that the shelter has to be in someone’s neighborhood and nobody wants it in their neighborhood, but it has to be somewhere. Even though he stayed there and he thought it was hell he felt that the staff handled many bad situations well.

Mr. Don Huggins, put statistics that he had compiled from Police reports on the overhead for the Commissioners to see. He stated that calls to Police had increased due to the number of people being served increasing. The shelter continues to serve more people with the same number of staff and same location. The shelter keeps incidence logs even when Police calls are not made and some patrons are banned from the location. He went on to say that between 2005 and 2006 the criminal calls remained about the same at the shelter but that crime had gone up City wide, not just at the shelter.

Mr. Jeff Miller, student at Bishop Seabury Academy, wanted to show his support. He spent several days volunteering at the shelter and was very impressed with staff and all the people that he encountered.

Mr. Eric Eninger, expressed opposition to renewing the SUP. He questioned the number of people who stayed at the shelter in 2006, as he stayed at the shelter for 1 month and saw the same faces every night. He stated that the 27 jobs found for 15,000 people who stay at shelter should not impress the Commissioners.

Mr. Cary Strong, owner of Aimee’s coffeehouse, stated that he had never felt threatened and that the shelter had never affected his daily business. He felt that working together as a community works better and to stereotype everyone in the shelter as chronically homeless would be incorrect. The guests have hopes and dreams and they need LCS to help them achieve those. If the shelter was not there, then the people who stay there would be on the streets.

Mr. Phil Hemphill, with the Community Commission for Homelessness, lives across the street from shelter. He stated that the Good Neighbor Agreement was late and still did not contain items that he feels would have been effective. He owns 2 apartment buildings next to his house and the shelter does affect his apartment business when homeless people wander through the yard. He has had problems with trespassing, loitering, foul language, etc and feels these should be addressed in the Good Neighbor Agreement.

Commissioner Burress stated that the community needs the shelter, but it does not place a burden on the neighborhood and wanted to know how far away Mr. Hemphill felt the burden reached; 5 or more properties from LCS.

Mr. Hemphill thought that a few dozen properties were probably impacted by the shelter.

Commissioner Eichhorn stated that it had been mentioned earlier that the City should take care of loitering in the parking lot and he wanted to know if the parking lot across the street was the City’s problem.

Mr. Hemphill stated that actions and consequences should come from the shelter. He also stated that the shelter had implemented a policy where no intoxicated guests are allowed at the shelter during the day and it cut the traffic through his yard by 50%.

Commissioner Finkeldei asked Mr. Hemphill if he had notified the LCS staff of his concerns over the past year, and what the consequences were.

Mr. Hemphill said that he visited with the LCS staff 2-3 times and certain guests were banned from the shelter as a consequence.

Mr. David Lewis, Downtown business owner for 13 years and a resident of the 900 block of Rhode Island. He lives a block away from the Salvation Army and feels things have gotten better Downtown in the past 10 years. He contributed part of this improvement to the closing of a few liquor stores Downtown. He went on to say that empty storefronts, street improvements, and landlord upkeep were his main concerns about downtown. He is supportive of LCS and appreciates their work.

Erika O’Shea, student at Bishop Seabury Academy, volunteered at shelter and found the experience to be positive. She supported the shelter SUP.

Mr. Hubbard Collinsworth, stayed at the shelter for 2 years and also serves on the Community Commission on Homelessness. He would never want to see the shelter close and supports the SUP. He would also like to see the shelter secure a better location. He would like the Commission to help with this task.

Ms. Rhonda Miller, would like to see the SUP extended beyond 1 year. She takes meals to the shelter several times a month and has never felt uncomfortable while being there. Her experience with the shelter and Loring have been positive.

Mr. Bill Goyer, Student Senate Advisor at Bishop Seabury Academy, felt that if LCS did not have to worry about renewing the SUP every year they would be able to spend more time in addressing operational issues. He supports a three or five year approval.

Mr. Phil Anderson, 2404 Louisiana, felt that the shelter accomplished more with less money than any other community service program he had seen and supported the SUP.

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Loring Henderson thanked everyone who spoke and thinks the community involvement should be there. He wanted to recognize that the community needed to work together and he was trying to be a better neighbor. He stated that they do address the parking lot and alley when there is loitering and that is where the security guard will help out. He tries to deal with neighborhood complaints promptly. No drinking is allowed in the daytime and there is a ban list. He agreed that the shelter was a burden on the community but Lawrence does not really have any “undesirable” areas to relocate to.

Commissioner Harris asked Mr. Henderson to respond to Ms. Sutton statement that the Good Neighborhood Agreement was late.

Mr. Henderson stated that the shelter held public forums at the library and had college students pass out fliers with dates and places of the meetings, but did not have a good turnout. Downtown Lawrence Inc. felt that they had not been involved so the shelter wanted to get their input and that process had delayed the agreement.

Commissioner Finkeldei asked Mr. Henderson to comment on the statistics of 15,000 daytime guests and 7,000 nighttime guests and asked if that number was duplicated.

Mr. Henderson responded yes, that the numbers included some of the same people.

Commissioner Finkeldei wanted to know when the new rule of intoxicated guests not being allowed during the day was implemented.

Mr. Henderson replied that the rule was implemented in September 2006. He clarified that the guests are not banned long-term but they just cannot be there during the day if intoxicated.

Commissioner Finkeldei asked if Mr. Henderson would agree with Mr. Hemphill’s statement that complaints from him had gone down since the drinking ban took effect.

Mr. Henderson stated that he would like to think so.

Commissioner Harkins asked if the shelter were to receive full cooperation of the City, if it could be a goal to occupy a suitable facility in 3 years.

Mr. Henderson stated if he had full cooperation of the City, then 3 years was not an unrealistic goal.

Commissioner Burress wanted to know if there was a program that could control behavior a block away.

Mr. Henderson said his short answer was no. But that it could be more controlled if it were a strict 24 hour shelter. Currently, at night a guest has to be signed in and have no company. He felt that having a security guard would help. He went on to say that his first responsibility was to the guests that stay at the shelter and then to the neighbors. He wants to improve the environment of the shelter because it would help the people staying there.

STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS

Staff had no closing comments.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Krebs summarized the issues that the Commission needed to discuss:

• length of renewal time of the SUP
• 3 revisions to conditions in the Staff memo – remove condition of Good Neighborhood Agreement, change in language on 3a, change in language to half-time security person on 4

She also expressed that she felt that the shelter had been a good neighbor over the past year and she appreciated the efforts of the shelter.

Commissioner Eichhorn felt uncomfortable taking out the Good Neighbor Agreement. He thinks is will be easier to reference a year from now. He understands the staffing issues, but does not think it would be a bad idea to have a full time security guard.

Commissioner Harkins did not think it would be realistic to renew the SUP on a yearly basis and feels it would be a burden for the Planning Commission to hear it every year. He thinks that 3 years would be a more realistic goal, which would allow for the shelter to plan for the future. He went on to say that a 24 hour security guard would be nice, but that it is a matter of resources and he is comfortable with a half time security guard.

Commissioner Krebs agreed that renewing the SUP every 3 years was a good idea and she would be in support of that.

Commissioner Finkeldei stated that LCS applied for funding through the alcohol tax and were approved because they showed they had made improvements in just 1 year in the services they provided. He was encouraged that Mr. Hemphill had seen improvements since September. If the SUP renewal time frame was more than 1 year it would be difficult to revoke the SUP because there are not conditions that could be violated except not submitting annual reports. He also noted that with LINK and Jubille Café Downtown it could be a prime location.

Commissioner Erickson inquired about what it would take for the SUP to be heard sooner than 3 years if they were to be in violation,

Ms. Stogsdill stated that Commissioner Finkeldei had a good point because there was no specific way to bring the SUP back to Planning Commission unless there were violations of the site Plan or occupancy. It would revolve around a complaint to the City that Staff would evaluate and then be heard by City Commission for a revocation hearing. The process would be somewhat subjective and the City Commission would have to feel it was a substantial issue for a hearing.

Commissioner Burress asked if there was an alternative to putting the shelter somewhere other than a neighborhood.

Ms. Stogsdill thought that the Community Commission on Homelessness was working on issues regarding the shelter but there would be no perfect solution.

Commissioner Finkeldei thought that the full-time security guard would be nice for the shelter to have but that he does not think that the Planning Commission should dictate that.

Commissioner Burress felt that there were not enough resources to meet the needs of the facility and thought that the Planning Commission was the wrong body dealing with the wrong issues. He felt that whatever the Planning Commission decided, that someone would pay for it, so there would be no right direction to push the burden. He thought that pressure should be put on the applicant to use resources to treat externalities. Pressure should also be placed on government to do something. He supported the 3 year renewal.

Commissioner Harris asked Staff if it would be possible to add “respectful resident behavior” to the end of condition #6g.

Ms. Pool replied yes, the Good Neighbor Agreement included elements of behavior, blight, etc.

Commissioner Harkins stated that he did not feel it was realistic to have the shelter problems resolved in the next 12 months and that it was clear the applicant was looking for alternatives. He did not see how they could enhance the project in just 1 year and that the Commission should not burden the applicant with coming back every year. He would like to send the message to City Commission urging them to get serious about the community problem and look for resources to help the issue.

Commissioner Lawson agreed with Commissioner Harkins. He made a motion to approve the SUP for 3 years and referenced revised conditions #1-6g (strike #1, combine #2 & #3 and change the time frame to 3 years, and annual report for each year, change #4 to include half-time guard only, leave other conditions as is.)

Commissioner Jennings seconded the motion.

Commissioner Lawson asked Mr. Henderson if he already created an annual report every year.

Mr. Henderson said he was comfortable doing an annual report each year. He asked how soon the annual report would need to be drafted.

Commissioner Lawson said that within the first quarter of each year was fine with him. He asked for a friendly amendment to the motion.

Commissioner Burress wanted to elaborate on the annual report. He said the point of the annual report would be to shift some responsibility. He would like to have the number and type of complaints from neighbors in the annual report as well.

Commissioner Jennings wanted to clarify that the annual report would be due in the first calendar quarter of each year.

Commissioner Harkins thought the idea of an annual report was a good idea but did not think it served a purpose. He was opposed to adding that as a provision.

Commissioner Harris requested that language be added to condition #6g regarding “neighborly behavior of the guests.”

Commissioner Haase apologized for his vote, but he has served on the Planning Commission for 6 years and this is the 4^th time he has heard an LCS request. He wanted to send a signal to City Commission about items that the Planning Commission should not be hearing. He stated that the City needs to come up with a comprehensive community effort. If the Planning Commission denied the SUP, there are at least 4 votes on City Commission that would send the SUP on. He disapproved of the location from a neighborhood standpoint, but approves of the work.

Commissioner Burress disagreed with Haase and felt there was no good location for the facility.

Commissioner Harkins amended to delete the annual report requirement.

Commissioner Jennings seconded.

Commissioner Burress felt there was gain from having the yearly report submitted to put some pressure on the applicant to think about it once a year.

Commissioner Harkins said the applicant did not need more pressure.

Motioned by Commissioner Harkins, seconded by Commissioner Jennings to amend the original motion to remove the annual report requirement.

Motion failed, 4-6, with Commissioners Harkins, Jennings, Krebs and Lawson in favor. Commissioners Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, and Harris in opposition. Student Robb voting in opposition also.

Commissioner Haase stated that people coming and going was a problem with the shelter and thought that providing transportation to and from the shelter in an industrial area would be an alternative. He felt that alternatives do need to be explored for future success.

Commissioner Jennings extended the meeting 15 minutes.

Commissioner Lawson urged the City Commission to use whatever means or methods possible to allow the Community Shelter to improve greatly in the next 3 years. He felt the City needs a better shelter.

Commissioner Haase stated that the homeless shelter was not just a government problem and was stunned that private funding had not been more. He would like the City Commission to be more involved in organizing private fundraising campaigns.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Lawson, seconded by Commissioner Jennings, to forward to the City Commission a recommendation of three-year approval for the LCS SUP and the ordinance for adoption on first reading based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report, subject to the following revised conditions:

1. Within 45 days of SUP approval by the City Commission, LCS shall submit a signed Good Neighbor Agreement with signatures of the LCS staff and at least 15 neighbors. (condition has been met)

2. If the shelter remains in its current location within three years (2010), the following items shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to the three-year expiration date:

a. An application for SUP renewal.

b. Information supporting a new shelter location, including the viability of the new location, i.e. a funding plan.

3. Submittal of an annual report to the Planning Office within the first calendar quarter of each year for the next three years. The report shall include a log of police calls (with type of call noted), a log of guests who obtain jobs and housing, numbers of guests who utilize the day and nighttime services, and an update on the on-going commitment to communicate with the surrounding neighborhood and to address concerns of neighbors.

4. The addition of staff member(s) to meet guest, neighborhood, and public safety needs (refer to attached LCS report for specific staff recommendations). At a minimum, one half-time paid security guard, i.e. outside monitor, shall be hired. This new staff person shall be required to work a minimum of 20 hours per week. The maximum occupancy level shall not be exceeded with the addition of new staff members.

5. A signed Site Plan Performance Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Office.

6. The site plan shall be revised to show the following changes:

a. Inclusion of a note which states that, if the shelter remains in its current location by renewal time in three years, the items in conditions #2a, #2b, and #3 shall be submitted (the specific items shall be detailed on the site plan).

b. Revision of the UPR expiration date to reflect the new SUP expiration date and replacement of “UPR” with “SUP”.

c. Revision of the zoning data to note that the site’s new zoning designation is RMO (Multi-Dwelling Residential-Office) District.

d. Revision of the staffing section to list the numbers of current day and nighttime staff, including both full and part-time staff. If staffing additions are approved as part of this SUP, these staff members shall be included as part of this new staff count.

e. Inclusion of the following note: “On February 15, 2007, the Historic Resources Commission approved the LCS Special Use Permit (DR-01-06-07), subject to conditions.”

f. Removal of the 18’ by 21’ by 10’4” metal canopy and picket fence, unless the City Commission grants an appeal of the Historic Resources Commission’s determination for this structure to be removed.

g. Notation stating that the Good Neighbor Agreement and LCS policies shall be referred to for additional provisions governing the use and maintenance of the LCS property and neighborly behavior of the guests.

Motion carried 8-2, with Commissioners Eichhorn and Haase in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.

PC Minutes 3/28/07

ITEM NO. 13:           AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)

TA-01-01-07: Consider amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted. Initiated by the Planning Commission at their January 2007 meeting.

Item 13 was deferred prior to the meeting.

PC Minutes 3/28/07

ITEM NO. 14:           AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT (JCR)

TA-03-02-07: Consider initiation of text amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle introduced the Text Amendment which proposes the following changes:

Pg. No.	Section No. 20 -	Recommended Text Change
Article 1. Introductory Provisions
Article 2. Base Districts
Article 3. Overlay Zoning Districts
3-11	308(c)(1)	Amend the language in this section so that the Historic Resources Commission may also initiate an application to establish a Urban Conservation Overlay District as well as the Planning Commission and City Commission.  As it is currently written, it conflicts with Section 20-308(d).
Article 4. Use Table
4-10	403	Add “Nightclub” as a permitted use in CS (Commercial Strip) District.  This use was inadvertantly omitted from the Development Code.  A number of existing uses are nonconforming as a result.
Article 5. Use Regulations
5-7	508	Add language to this section which would permit construction of a detached dwelling in RM and RMO Districts without a Special Use Permit in instances where a majority of the properties on the block face are constructed as detached dwellings.
Article 6. Density and Dimensional Standards
Article 7. Planned Development Districts
Article 8.Subdivision Design and Improvement Regulations <<See Item No. 16 TA-11-13-06>>
Article 9. Parking, Loading and Access
9-1 to 9-23	Article 9	Throughout Article 9, “article” and “section” are often used interchangably.  Instances where this occurs should be corrected for clarification.
9-4 to 9-7	902	Reformat the Off-Street Parking Schedule A to resemble the Use Tables of Article 4 to make the parking schedule easier to read and to ensure that all the uses and use groups listed in the Use Tables are provided a parking requirement.
9-10	908(b)(2)	This regulation conflicts with Chapter 16, Article 3 of the City Code when describing maximum width of residential driveways.
9-16	913(e)(2)	Add porous pavement to the list of alternative surfacing materials and insert a reference to the City’s adopted Best Management Practices Manual.
9-18 to 9-22	915	The general statement in this section says that these standards apply to multi-family or nonresidential uses, but the General Standards (subsection a) seems to conflict with this.
Article 10. Landscaping and Screening
Article 11. General Development Standards
11-9	1105(b)	Revise the language of this section so that it is consistent with Article 8 (Subdivision Regulations).
Article 12. Floodplain Management Regulations
Article 13. Development Review Procedures
Article 14. Boards and Commissions
Article 15. Nonconformities
15-8	1504(c)(2)	For clarity, add the last sentence of Section 1504(c)(2)(ii) to the end of the general statement for Residential Zoning Districts.
15-9	1504(c)(3)	For clarity, add the last sentence of Section 1504(c)(2)(ii) to the end of the general statement for Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Article 16. Violations, Penalties and Enforcement
Article 17. Terminology
17-19	1718	Remove the word “not” from the 4^th line of the definition for “Construction Sales and Services”.

PUBLIC HEARING

No public comment.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Burress inquired about the League of Women Voters letter.

Mr. Rexwinkle said he did not see the harm in adding the language that the League had suggested.

Commissioner Burress stated that the League had good points in their letter.

Mr. Rexwinkle stated that Staff would discuss the letter and may include the proposed language in revised language.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to initiate the proposed revisions [TA-03-02-07] to the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” for public hearing for a future Planning Commission meeting and include suggested language from the League of Women Voters letter.

Motion carried unanimously, 10-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.

PC Minutes 3/28/07

ITEM NO. 15:           AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 3 & 5, COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS (SMS)

TA-08-07-06: Amendments to Articles 3 & 5 of the County Zoning Regulations regarding thedefinition of lot width and the establishment of setbacks along roads based upon road classification.  [Revisions associated with proposed rural development regulations.]

Item 15 was deferred prior to the meeting.

PC Minutes 3/28/07

ITEM NO. 16:           AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE 7 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (JCR/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 2006 meeting.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle introduced the Text Amendment which proposes the following changes:

Pg. No.	Section No. 20 -	Recommended Text Change
Article 8.Subdivision Design and Improvement Regulations
Throughout Article 8		There are references to requiring street trees and sidewalks in areas outside the City but within the UGA.  It is not practical to require these improvements until the area is annexed into the City.  A mechanism for implementing these improvements upon annexation which would relieve the owner from making such improvements while outside the City should be identified and discussed in an appropriate location within Article 8. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06) Staff is continuing to work on this.
25 of 97	807(c)(3)	The text regarding the Certificate of Survey being used as a de facto Major Subdivision needs to be revised. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06) Staff is continuing to work on this.
39-50 of 97	810	Add a subsection at the end of this section which defines “Exception” as it applies to design standards (in accordance with the definition provided in Section 815(b) on page 81).  This subsection should also outline the process for requesting an exception and gaining approval of such request (i.e. who makes the decision to approve or deny). (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06) Staff is continuing to work on this.
46 of 97	810(d)(7)(v)	This subsection states that cul-de-sac’s which exceed 600 feet in length should include pedestrian right-of-way easements at the terminues of the cul-de-sac and references Section 20-810(f)(4)(ii) which says they should be provided when block lengths exceed 800 feet.  (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06) Staff is continuing to work on this.
47 of 97	810(d)(10)(1)	This subsection provides standards for alleys in nonresidential zoning districts but no mention as to whether alleys are permitted in residential districts is made.  Throughout the remainder of the Development Code, assumptions are made that alleys are permitted in residential districts, therefore standards for alleys in such areas is needed. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06) Staff is continuing to work on this.
49 of 97	810(f)(4)	Add a reference (subsection v) to variance procedures for granting variances the standards within this subsection. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06) See below.
49 of 97	810(f)(4)(iv)	This subsection conflicts with Section 20-809(l) in that it alludes to the City Commission acting on a final plat.  According to Section 20-809(l), final plats are approved administratively unless they do not conform with the approved preliminary plat. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06) See below.
49 of 97	810(g)	This subsection, which discusses attainment of park land, public land and open space, suggests that the Planning Commission “encourage or require” the donation, reservation, or dedication of such lands “PLUS $600 per lot for every single-family dwelling lot”.  This language is unclear and provides little direction to Planning Staff or the Planning Commission.  Furthermore, it may not be necessary to require donation PLUS $600 per lot and there is no mention as to what fees may be necessary for non-single family dwelling lots. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06) Staff is continuing to work on this.  Hold for Legal Services review.
51 of 97	811(a)(1)	Water and Sanitary Sewer should be added to the list of Public Improvements within this subsection. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
52 of 97	811(b)(4)	This subsection is awkwardly written and should be rewritten. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06) Staff is continuing to work on this.
52 of 97	811(c)(1)(iii)	This subsection conflicts with Section 20-809(l) in that it alludes to the Governing Body acting on a final plat.  According to Section 20-809(l), the Governing Bodies act only on the preliminary plat while the final plat is administratively approved. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
54 of 97	811(d)	This subsection should be revised to include discussion of sanitary sewers in City subdivisions and a requirement for submission of Downstream Sanitary Sewer Analyses should be added. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06) Staff is continuing to work on this.
61 of 97	811(h)(1)	Revise this subsection so that it is more specific. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06) Staff is continuing to work on this.
64 of 97	812(a)(2)(i)	The floodplain terminology in this subsection conflicts with that in other sections and must be clarified. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06) Staff is continuing to work on this.
68 of 97	812(b)(2)(xi)	This subsection references redistribution of City Special Assessments.  It should also include County Benefit Districts. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)
69 of 97	813(b)(2)	This subsection conflicts with Section 20-809(l) in that it alludes to the Governing Body acting on a final plat.  According to Section 20-809(l), final plats are approved administratively unless they do not conform with the approved preliminary plat. (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-11-13-06)

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Burress asked about Item 4 on the 3^rd page; was “variance” really a waiver?

Ms. Stogsdill stated that it was a variance, not a waiver.

Commissioner Finkeldei inquired if City Commission would accept the Preliminary Plat or Final Plat?

Ms. Stogsdill said that now the Preliminary Plat would actually go on to City Commission and easements and R-O-W are accepted at the Preliminary level while Final Plats are administratively approved.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve and forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-11-13-06] to Article 8 of the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition, as amended January 1, 2007” to the County Commission and City Commission.

Motion carried unanimously, 10-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.

____________________________________________________________________________

ADJOURN 10:40pm