PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 23 & 25, 2007
Meeting minutes
_____________________________________________________________
April 23, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins, Jennings and Student Commissioner Robb
Staff present: Stogsdill, Day, Rexwinkle, J. Miller, and Brown
_____________________________________________________________
Receive and amend or approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of March 26 & 28, 2007.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to approve the March 26 & 28, 2007 Planning Commission minutes with changes from Commissioner Harris and Ms. Sandra Day.
Motion unanimously approved 8-0 with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
CPC: Commissioner Jennings stated the committee met and were waiting on the new traffic plan to be finished in mid May.
RZO: Commissioner Eichhorn said that the committee did not meet because he was at the APA conference in Philadelphia.
TAC: Commissioner Finkeldei reported that the committee met but that he would save the discussion until Item 8.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Sheila Stogsdill outlined the following communications:
Item 2A – Rezoning of 6th & Stoneridge Drive
· Letter from the League of Women Voters
Item 3 – CUP for Verizon Wireless; 261 E 1250 Road, Baldwin City
Misc. Item 2 – TA-04-04-07
Item 7 – SUP for Castle Tea Room; 1307 Massachusetts
PC Minutes 4/23/07
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte
· Commissioner Finkeldei declared abstention from Item 6
· There were no deferral requests to consider
PC Minutes 4/23/07
ITEM NO. 1: FINAL PLAT FOR MERCATO ADDITION 2ND PLAT, 6200 W 6TH ST (MKM)
PF-03-04-07: Final Plat for Mercato Addition 2nd Plat containing 16 lots, 3 tracts and approximately 72.657 acres, located at 6200 West 6th Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Kentucky Place LC et al, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Jennings to approve the Final Plat of Mercato Addition, 2nd Plat and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised Final Plat with the following changes:
a. The 20’ access/utility easement must be shown on the eastern property lines of all lots/tracts adjacent to George Williams Way as shown on the final plat for Mercato Addition 1st Plat.
b. Note stating that the existing sidewalk on W 6th Street will be extended when the developer removes the W. 6th Street/ K-10 frontage road and access south of Overland Drive. This can be a separate note, or Note 3 can be revised to read “The developer will remove the W. 6th Street/K-10 frontage road and access south of Overland Drive, when Overland Drive is constructed and links up with the K-10 frontage road and the developer will extend the sidewalk along W. 6th Street at this time.” (new text in bold.)
c. Mayor’s signature blank must be revised with the new mayor’s name, Sue Hack.
d. Note 9 on the plat prohibits direct access from any of the property in the development to the South Lawrence Trafficway Frontage Road, 6th Street, Mercato Way and George Williams Way. The plat must be revised to show this access restriction graphically with hatch marks.
2. The Final Plat can not be recorded until a special assessment benefit district or districts for the improvement of George Williams Way from West 6th Street to the north boundary line of the Mercato Addition, 1st and 2nd plats, including intersection improvements at West 6th Street, has been successfully established.
3. Public improvement plans for utilities, sidewalks, streets (Overland Drive, Mercato Way, and Mercato Drive), and improvements to K-10 frontage road must be submitted before the final plat can be recorded.
4. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.
5. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
6. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Copy of paid property tax receipt;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
c. Provision of a complete master street tree plan; and
d. Provision of street sign fees.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0 as a part of the Consent Agenda, with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
PC Minutes 4/23/07
ITEM NO. 2A: RS10 TO GPI, NORTH OF NW CORNER OF 6TH & STONERIDGE DRIVE (EXTENDED) (JCR)
Z-03-03-07: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 3.62 acres, from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) to GPI (General Public and Institutional). The property is located North of the NW corner of 6th & Stoneridge Drive (extended). Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers, Inc., for the City of Lawrence, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle presented the item. A rezoning from RS10 to GPI to permit the development of the stie with an elevated water tower. Staff recommended approval.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Joe Caldwell, with Bartlett & West Engineering, agreed with Staff recommendation.
Commissioner Burress asked Staff about the letter from the League of Women Voters. He would have liked to have seen the elevations.
Mr. Rexwinkle stated that elevations were read as a part of a site plan submittal and that Site Plans are reviewed and approved administratively.
Commissioner Burress stated that a Site Plan was read with a Conditional Use Permit and it had not been provided.
Mr. Rexwinkle clarified that this application was a rezoning, not a Conditional Use Permit.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Applicant had no closing comments.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Harkins asked if the water tower was being designed to accommodate the installation of further communication antennas.
Ms. Stogsdill replied yes, and the design was being done to accommodate those amenities in the future.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Jennings, to approve the rezoning of approximately 3.62 acres from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) District to GPI (General Public and Institutional Use) 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. Approval and recordation of a final plat at the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
Motion carried unanimously 8-0 with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
PC Minutes 4/23/07
ITEM NO. 2B: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR STONERIDGE, NORTH OF NW CORNER OF 6TH & STONERIDGE DRIVE (EXTENDED) (JCR)
PP-03-03-07: Preliminary Plat for Stoneridge Water Tower Addition, a one lot subdivision, located at North of the NW corner of 6th & Stoneridge Drive (extended). Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers, Inc., for the City of Lawrence, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Jennings, to approve the Preliminary Plat for Stoneridge Water Tower Addition and forward to the City Commission for acceptance of right-of-way, subject to the following condition:
1. Show restriction of access to Stoneridge Drive extending 350’ north of 6th Street centerline on the preliminary plat.
Motion carried 7-0 unanimously with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative. (Commissioner Eichhorn left the meeting at 6:45pm, after Item 2A)
PC Minutes 4/23/07
ITEM NO. 3: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VERIZON WIRELESS, 261 E 1250 ROAD, BALDWIN CITY (SLD)
CUP-03-05-07: Conditional Use Permit for a Verizon Wireless cellular tower, located at 261 E 1250 Road, Baldwin City. Submitted by Verizon Wireless, for Judy Masur, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Sandra Day presented the item and showed a map of the proposed Highway 59 improvements.
The subject property is zoned for the proposed use. The existing development of the subject property includes a home and agricultural activity. The subject property is located within an existing highway corridor. The applicant has provided documentation of a physical review of the area to identify co-location opportunities and the necessary justification reports required for submission per section 19-4 (31). There are existing towers located to the north and east of the area, but are outside of the identified search ring. This documentation is consistent with County records regarding the location of existing communication towers and other towers (water) in the vicinity of the subject property. There is undeniably an existing residential presence surrounding the proposed tower location. The parent parcel is sufficiently large enough to accommodate the required setbacks given the proposed tower height. Staff recommended appropriate landscaping around the tower base should be used to mitigate the view of the ground mounted equipment within the tower base enclosure. Landscaping should be provided to fully screen the enclosure from all sides.
Ms. Day also stated that the Planning Commission might want to consider requiring lighting on the tower because of the presence of a private landing strip located to the west.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Curtis Holland, attorney representing Verizon Wireless and the property owner, showed on overhead of where the old tower proposal was compared to where the new tower is proposed. He went on to say that there were no existing towers that Verizon could co-locate equipment onto so a raw land site was needed to build on. He requested previous minutes for the previous application (CUP-08-06-06) from the 10/25/06 Planning Commission meeting and the 12/6/06 Board of County Commission to be added with these minutes for the Board of County Commissioners. (previous minutes will be provided to the BoCC) He was aware of the aesthetic concerns. He went on to say that television reception would not happen (referring to a neighbor letter). The Planning Commission previously recommended the tower be moved to the north, which would just produce a different set of neighbors that would be upset, and he stated that is just what happened. The new site location is farther away from residences than the previous site location and approximately 915 feet away from a nearby grass airstrip. The new location is an attempt to put the tower in an area that needs service that would not have as big as impact as the previous location. He stated that there was a public benefit to cellular towers by the 911 network. Mr. Holland also gave Ms. Day appraiser reports saying that cellular towers have no impact on property value. He agreed with the Staff Report and was willing to abide by the conditions.
Commissioner Burress felt that television interference was not “impossible” as Mr. Holland had stated.
Mr. Holland said that in his 13 years of experience with cell towers he had never heard of one complaint or study that would indicate any interference with televisions, microwaves or radios. He stated that they are on different radio frequency bands, but he had no information to refute it.
Commissioner Haase asked Staff why the Board of County Commissioners denied the last CUP request and wanted to know if the current application was better than the past application.
Ms. Day stated that the previous application was not included in the packet. The vote by the Board of County Commissioners was 2-1 to deny because there were several residents in opposition. The protest petition was not found to be valid.
Commissioner Haase asked if there was a protest petition yet.
Ms. Day replied no, but it was possible for it to be done in the next 14 days.
Mr. Holland stated that at the 12/6/06 County Commission meeting there was a Commissioner who refused any more communications until a 3rd party review was part of the ordinance. The other Commissioner stated he would like to have a map of all the towers in the county before voting.
Commissioner Harkins asked Staff about the status of the nearby grass airstrip.
Ms. Day replied that the grass airstrip CUP was approved in 2000 and was re-approved in 2005.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the airstrip was about 900’ from the proposed tower location.
Ms. Day said that 900’ was a conservative number.
Commissioner Burress asked Mr. Holland if required lighting on the tower would be something he would be willing to do.
Mr. Holland responded, yes, they would comply with a request for lighting. He did not feel that the tower would have a negative impact on the airstrip.
Commissioner Haase inquired if the Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandated that towers be approved.
Mr. Holland stated that the Federal Act provides some jurisdiction and says that the local government entity cannot pass regulations that prohibit the placement of wireless communication facilities. A denial that is based on current regulation could result in a challenge of that decision. He did not want to speculate legal ramifications and wanted to find a reasonable solution.
Commissioner Burress asked Staff about a lighting condition. If the light was not needed, was there a way to make the lighting a must based on findings.
Ms. Day stated that the Planning Commission could certainly recommend appropriate lighting for the tower but that the Board of County Commissioners ultimately had the final decision on the lighting.
Mr. Holland said that the lighting is governed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and would have to be in accordance with FAA regulations. He thought that the lighting would likely be a light pulsating during the day, and a red beacon during the night.
Commissioner Harkins said he assumed the runway was not lighted.
Ms. Day responded by saying, not that she was aware of.
Mr. Holland said he thought there were regulations about lighting at night on a runway.
PUBLIC HEARING
Ronald Schneider, attorney on behalf of property owner Judy Masur, would like the approval of the project. He also stated that a neighbor, Marvin Jordan, was also in favor of the project.
George Maxwell, owner of the private airstrip was concerned about the length of the Conditional Use Permit.
Ms. Day responded by saying that many times there was a limit of 5-10 years on CUP’s, although there was a provision that if a tower was vacant they must be removed.
Mr. Maxwell stated that the tower could be a possible hazard to his runway strip. He only uses the airway during day and lands about 3-4 times a month. He also wanted to know if the tower CUP would supersede his permit that he has to renew every 5 years. He thought the tower should be placed at the Baldwin Junction intersection. He is opposed to the tower.
Commissioner Harkins asked Mr. Maxwell if the lighting on the tower during the day help would help him see it.
Mr. Maxwell replied, yes, during the day it would but at night it would not help because he does not fly at night. He went on to say that there are Medivac flights that fly through the area at night. He would prefer the tower not have lighting at night for aesthetic reasons.
Commissioner Harkins inquired about where the tower was in conjunction to the airstrip.
Mr. Maxwell stated that currently his approach pattern was to the South of the Highway. He agreed that the 900 foot estimated distance between the proposed tower and airstrip was probably accurate. He was concerned that Verizon might come back in 5 years when the CUP expires and protest his airstrip saying that they do not want the liability of a plane flying into it.
Ms. Day said that if something changed with the CUP, like expanding, then it could be a possibility. She also stated that the landing strip had existed for a while, prior to the tower.
Marshall Hoyt, neighbor who lives at 1223 N 1200 Road, stated that if he had known when he bought the house that a cell tower would be put up and in view of his window he would not have purchased the home. He was opposed the tower but if it was approved then he would prefer it not to have lights.
Jerry Smith, lives 3,000’ south of where the tower would go, is opposed to the tower and would not like the tower to be lit because he would have to look at it out his kitchen window. He stated that towers already exist 4 ½ miles east, 5 miles to the north, and 4 miles west of Baldwin Junction there is another tower. He questioned why towers were not required to allow other providers equipment on them.
Commissioner Burress asked Staff to respond to the idea of co-location.
Ms. Day stated that County regulations require that any new tower provide a minimum of 2-3 platforms for co-location. The applicants request is to the technical merits of where they are trying to provide service. She did not know if Verizon had co-locations on the towers that Mr. Smith mentioned. She went on to say that Mr. Holland did address co-location during the 10/25/06 Planning Commission meeting. The coverage area is the basis of the project.
Donna Saile, lives near the proposed tower, stated her opposition to the tower. She believed that the property value would depreciate.
Mr. Smith stated that he has Verizon cell phone service and did not have trouble with service in that area.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Holland said that by moving the tower to new location they have just ended up with a room full of different residents that are opposed. The tower will be a 4 carrier platform. This would allow more reliable coverage and Verizon is trying to provide better quality of service in the area. He went on to say that Verizon co-location does exist on current towers. He stated that people would not have cell phones if there were no towers. The proposed new location is in an area that will minimize impact because of the few residences in the area. The project does meet the County regulations in the area.
Student Commissioner Robb asked if another provider did co-locate on the Verizon tower would it require lighting.
Mr. Holland replied, no, only if it extended the tower height beyond 200’ would it require lighting. Other carriers would be allowed to co-located on this tower.
Commissioner Haase asked in the event that this CUP was not approved, could the previous application be resubmitted.
Mr. Holland stated they would have to reapply with a new application.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Ms. Day stated that the FAA report says if a community or neighborhood felt lighting was required it could be added. She did not add it as a condition; she wanted to leave it up to the Commission based on public input.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress did not support lighting since the neighbors did not want it. He said that the Commission was faced with the same situation that they face over and over again; someone has to be stuck with it. He felt there ought to be some sort of compensation to the surrounding property owners.
Commissioner Jennings thought the towers would replace the phone polls along the roads. He stated that some people want to move to areas where there is coverage and not everyone sees good communication as a negative thing. Some people in the county specifically switch cellular providers to get coverage where they live. He said he has a cellular tower near his house and it is part of the landscape now. He said that the applicant did what the Commission asked them to do, which was to move it closer to the intersection.
Commissioner Haase said he would abstain from the vote. He thought what Commissioner Jennings said was accurate but he felt that the previous application was a better location for the tower. He also felt that the safety factor of the airstrip was a bigger factor and did not feel comfortable making a decision one way or the other.
Commissioner Finkeldei was not as concerned about the safety and felt this location was better for the tower because it was farther from residences.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harkins, to approve CUP-03-05-07, a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a tower and placement of antenna and ground mounted equipment, and forward it to the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised site plan to show the following:
a. Proposed landscape around the enclosure of the tower base per staff approval;
b. Dimensions of the tower from the south property line;
2. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following notes per Section 19-4 (31) (c ) (4 & 5)
a. “Any tower that is not in use for a period of three continuous years, or more, shall be removed by the owner at the owner's expense. Failure to remove the tower pursuant to non-use may result in removal and assessment of cost to the owner of the tower.”
b. “A sign shall be posted on the exterior of the fence around the base of the tower noting the name and telephone number of the tower owner and operator.”
c. “The tower owner/operator shall submit a letter to the Planning Office by July 1st of each year listing the current users and types of antenna located on the approved tower (Reference CUP-03-05-07 in the letter)”.
3. Provision of a revised site plan to include a landscape plan compliant with Section 19A– 4 (10) that notes the size and type of landscape per staff approval.
4. Approval of a Floodplain Development Permit by the County Building and Zoning Department as applicable.
Motion approved 6-0-1 with Commissioner Haase abstaining from the vote.
Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
PC Minutes 4/23/07
ITEM NO. 4: RS10 TO RS5, 523-543 ROCKLEDGE (MKM)
Z-11-28-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately .954 acres, from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) to RS5 (Single-Dwelling Residential). The property is located at 523-543 Rockledge. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for LC Anuff, property owner of record.
Item 4 was deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 4/23/07
MISC. ITEM NO. 1:
Authorize Chair to sign letter of support for City of Lawrence Safe Routes to Schools grant application.
Ms. Stogsdill said that the City Commission also had a request for support tomorrow night. According to KDOT, if the funds are received than an amendment to the TIP would be seen.
Commissioner Burress inquired about existing funds.
Ms. Stogsdill stated the KDOT funds are an 80%/20% match which would come out of the Public Works Department budget.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated that this was approved for Baldwin City and he did not believe it had matching funds during the first phase.
ACTION
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harkins to authorize Chair to sign letter of support for City of Lawrence Safe Routes to Schools grant application.
Motion unanimously approved 7-0 with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
MISC. ITEM NO. 2:
TA-04-04-07: Consider initiation of amendments to Chapter 20, Article 8 (Subdivision Regulations) regarding access (20-810(d)(2)(iii)). See request from David Hamby, BG Consultants. (JCR)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle presented the item. He stated that David Hamby of BG Consultants, Inc. contacted the Planning Office to request that the Planning Commission initiate a text amendment to Chapter 20, Article 8, Section 20-810(d)(2)(iii). The section pertains to street connections in new subdivisions. Currently this section states the following:
Planning Staff supported the request to initiate a text amendment and, if appropriate, will prepare revised language for the May Planning Commission meeting. Planning Staff requested that the Planning Commission initiate a text amendment to Article 8 (Subdivision Regulations) of the Development Code, for public hearing at a later date.
Commissioner Haase asked Staff if they had an opinion to the general merit of the request.
Mr. Rexwinkle said that Staff believed that there were numerous reasons for the regulations to stay the way they were and not be changed but discussions are continuing. He went on to say that if the Planning Commission chose to initiate the Text Amendment then it would be brought back to Planning Commission at a later date and with a recommendation.
Commissioner Haase wanted clarification that Staff was not in a position at the present time to recommend the text amendment one way or the other.
Mr. Rexwinkle responded that that was correct. The only decision the Planning Commission had to make at this time was to initiate it and then later could reject the new proposed language if needed.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that if the Planning Commission initiates it then Staff will further evaluate the proposal. At that point Staff may or may not recommend changes be made.
Commissioner Krebs stated she was not in favor of the text amendment due to lack of information, but if it was in an area of the Development Code that needed language changes, she would like it to be at Staffs request, not the public.
Commissioner Harkins said that the Planning Commission should be responsive to Staff and the public and at least consider the possible change.
ACTION
Motioned by Commissioner Harkins, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to initiate the proposed amendments to Chapter 20, Article 8 (Subdivision Regulations) regarding access (20-810(d)(2)(iii)).
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
MISC. ITEM NO. 3:
TA-04-05-07 : Consider initiation of amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct
inconsistencies since adopted. (JCR)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle presented the item. He stated that in reviewing the Development Code, it
appeared that there was not a simple mechanism, such as a zoning district, which permits mixed use
developments. Mixed uses are possible when developed as Planned Developments by starting with an
RS or RM base district and adding commercial uses. However, this method requires a minimum site area
of 10 acres and more than 100 dwelling units. (See Sec. 20-701(f)(2))
The CN1 District permits some residential including mixed use structures and could be used as a base district in a Planned Development, but this district has a maximum site area of only one acre.
As the Development Code is currently written, there is no mechanism to permit mixed use development on sites between one and ten acres in area. Throughout Lawrence, there exists a number of potential developable areas in this range, some which may be suitable for mixed use development such as aging commercial strip centers and infill areas. It was Staff’s opinion that a new Mixed Use Zoning District be created to directly address these opportunities and to permit this type of development, when built to a high standard, by right.
A staff subcommittee had been formed and is currently discussing creation of such a district. Comparable cities with mixed use zoning districts will be studied. The proposed language will address important issues regarding mixed use development such as density, design and form. Creation of a mixed use district within the Development Code will require amendments to many different Articles to address these issues adequately. At this point, Staff identified amendments to the following Articles:
Planning Staff recommended that the Planning Commission initiate text amendments to Articles 2, 4, 5,
6, 9, 10, 11 and 17 of the Development Code, for public hearing at a later date.
Commissioner Finkeldei wanted to know how it would fit with the Smart Code. And if it would be allowed
in areas less than 10 acres.
Mr. Rexwinkle said there were limitations in the Smart Code but did not know the specifics at this time.
He did not think it would go to the extent of the Smart Code.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if in the future an applicant would be able to choose the Smart Code or
the mixed-use.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that the mixed-use text Smart Code would be parallel, so it would be a choice of
either all one way or the other.
ACTION
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei to initiate text amendments to
Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted.
Motion unanimously approved 7-0, with Student Commissioner Robb voting in the affirmation.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Recess at 8:10pm.
Recess until 6:30 P.M. on April 25, 2007.
PC Minutes 4/25/07
_____________________________________________________________________
Reconvene April 25, 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, J. Miller, Patterson, Pool, Rexwinkle, Warner, Zollner and Brown
_______________________________________________________________________
COMMUNICATIONS
No new communications.
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte
· Commissioner Finkeldei abstaining from Item 6
· There were no deferral requests to consider
PC Minutes 4/25/07
ITEM NO. 5: SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PLAN (LAP)
Receive request from the City of Eudora to initiate text amendments to the Douglas County Zoning Regulations and/or Subdivision Regulations in order to implement the City's Source Water Protection Plan.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Lisa Pool presented the item.
The City of Eudora submitted a request to amend the Douglas County Zoning Regulations and/or joint City of Lawrence/Douglas County Subdivision Regulations to protect designated source water protection zones as listed in the City of Eudora Source Water Protection Plan. Planning Staff supported amending the Douglas County Zoning Regulations and joint City/County Subdivision Regulations to include not only the City of Eudora’s source water protection zones, but also the other designated source water protection zones within the unincorporated areas of Douglas County. Staff recommended designating each public water source and an area within a two-mile radius of each source as overlay zones.
Planning Staff also recommended that the County Zoning Regulations and joint City/County Subdivision Regulations be amended to include source water protection measures for development activity, including site plans, plats, and certificates of survey, within the designated source water protection overlay zones. These measures will be derived from the Source Water Protection Plan.
Planning Staff recommended that the Planning Commission initiate text amendments to the Douglas County Zoning Regulations and joint City/County Subdivision Regulations to add Douglas County source water protection overlay zones and associated protection measures for site plans, plats, and certificates of survey within these zones for the City of Eudora and the other unincorporated areas of Douglas County. A public hearing for the proposed amendments for the City of Eudora is tentatively scheduled for the June Planning Commission meeting. The remainder of the zones in the unincorporated areas of the County will be considered at a later date.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Cheryl Beatty, City of Eudora, asked on behalf of Eudora to preserve water sources.
Commissioner Burress inquired about information with abbreviations in tables and if there would be narratives.
Ms. Beatty replied that the master document explained all of the details.
Ms. Stogsdill advised the Planning Commission that they were just being asked to initiate the Text Amendment and a public hearing will be held in June.
Commissioner Harris questioned Staff if the source water protection plan that will be used as reference for a future county plan, mentioned in the Staff report, was Eudora's source plan.
Ms. Pool replied yes, any reference in the Staff Report was in reference to the City of Eudora source water protection plan.
Commissioner Lawson asked who prepared the water protection plan for Eudora.
Ms. Beatty responded that the Kansas Rural Water Associate prepared the plan. Eudora initiated this plan before required to do so by law (required by law at 10,000 population) in order to participate in grant funding.
Commissioner Harkins asked Staff if there was a plan in place, or in the works, to protect the upper Wakarusa watershed.
Ms. Pool stated that the Kaw Valley Heritage Alliance has drafted a protection plan for the upper Wakarusa watershed, but she was not sure if the plan was similar to Eudora’s.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Ms. Beatty said that anyone was welcome to call her with questions.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
ACTION
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to initiate text amendments to the Douglas County Zoning Regulations and joint City/County Subdivision Regulations to add source water protection overlay zones and associated protection measures for site plans, plats, and certificates of survey within these zones for the City of Eudora and the other unincorporated areas of Douglas County.
Motion unanimously approved 10-0, with Student Commissioner Robb voting in the affirmation.
ITEM NO. 6: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH,
867 HWY 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.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Lisa Pool introduced the item. Staff recommended approval with conditions.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. C.L. Maurer, Landplan Engineering, was present for questions.
Commissioner Jennings asked if 52 children would be present at the center during the morning or afternoon, or all day.
Mr. Maurer replied that 52 children would be at the center all day.
Commissioner Harkins questioned if there was a plan to reduce the westbound speed limit from 55 to 45 mph. He felt that a reduction in speed from 55 to 45 mph should be recommended for the westbound lane leading to the church, but that it should remain 55 mph west of the church.
Mr. Maurer was not aware of any plans to reduce the speed in that area.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that the Planning Commission could ask the Board of County Commissioners to recommend a speed reduction to KDOT.
Commissioner Harris asked Staff if there were any major improvements intended to 6th Street/Highway 40.
Ms. Stogsdill replied that no improvement plans were scheduled west of K-10 in the next 5 years.
Commissioner Krebs inquired about a time limit to review Conditional Use Permits and what the requirements would be for adding a time limit.
Ms. Pool stated that the applicant requested a time limit not be put on it. Staff did not recommend a time limit but could add it.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that past CUP’s with time limits have been a use of land where potentially there would be more urbanization in the next few years, so it made sense to look at the CUP regularly. In this case the preschool would be inside the church facility, and was part of the church master plan when it was first constructed. She did not think there would really be a need to put a time limit on this CUP.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Applicant had no closing comments.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Eichhorn was concerned about preschools in churches competing with other preschools that pay property taxes. He was worried about the area not being planned, but looking at different uses for it.
Commissioner Burress agreed with Commissioner Eichhorn on tax exemption for churches but felt that it was not relevant for this purpose. He felt that they were not using different standards to evaluate this project.
Ms. Pool stated that the review of daycares in the City were slightly different than the county, and that the subject proposal was located outside the City.
Ms. Stogsdill said that this area was part of a nodal plan started when Diamondhead began. The southwest corner of the intersection was in that nodal plan for institutional, not retail commercial.
ACTION
Motioned by Commissioner Jennings, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Child Care Center at First United Methodist Church and forward 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. Documentation of licensure of the child care center from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
2. Submittal and approval of a Kansas Department of Transportation permit application that includes scaled plans with details of the area from the west ramp terminus of K-10 to 300 feet west of the site’s temporary driveway.
3. Revision of the site plan to include the following:
a. Revision of the child care center information to include the maximum numbers of classes, children, and teachers expected on each weekday. Information for the pre-school classes and parent’s day out program should be included.
b. Addition of a note, stating that if the numbers of children or classes is increased beyond the numbers noted on the plan, the Douglas County Zoning Codes Enforcement Officer will be contacted for further instruction.
Motion approved 9-0-1, with Commissioner Finkeldei abstaining from the vote. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
Ms. Stogsdill asked if the Commissioner wanted to recommend a second motion to reduce the speed limit.
Commissioner Harkins asked Staff to reflect the Planning Commission’s consensus to request a reduction in the speed limit from 55 to 45 mph. If the Board of County Commissioners agrees, they should suggest to KDOT that the speed limit be reduced.
All of the Commissioners agreed to this request.
PC Minutes 4/25/07
ITEM NO. 7: SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CASTLE TEA ROOM, 1307
MASSACHUSETTS (SLD)
SUP-03-03-07: Special Use Permit for The Castle Tea Room. Located at 1307 Massachusetts Street, approximately .4 acres, and 1313 Massachusetts Street, approximately .13 acres. Submitted by CP & Associates Architects and Planners, for Libuse-Kritz Florito Historic Foundation, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Sandra Day presented the item. She pointed out an error in the Staff Report where it says the location can stay open until 12pm, it should be corrected to say 12am. Staff recommended approval.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Michael Cronwell, CP & Associates Architects & Planners, said that the location will continue the use of The Castle Tea Room in the same way that it was started for. There is a fund to continue the property in the way it was intended.
Craig Patterson provided a letter from Larry McElwain, owner of neighboring property, regarding the verbal parking agreement Mr. McElwain has had over the years with The Castle Tea Room. The letter gives permission to The Castle Tea Room patrons to use his parking lot.
Mr. Cronwell would like the formal request to record a parking agreement dropped from the conditions.
Commissioner Burress inquired if the applicant was asking for the Staff Report conditions 4a(iii) and 5 to be dropped.
Mr. Cronwell replied, yes.
Commissioner Haase asked if there was historical significance to the fountain that will be constructed.
Mr. Cronwell stated that the fountain was found in a historical photo. It was decided to incorporate the fountain as a historical legacy and to buffer between neighboring property and the outdoor patio.
Commissioner Harris inquired about the use of a tent and wondered if it would be present all the time or would it only be up when needed by guests.
Mr. Cronwell responded that there would not be a tent on a permanent basis, but can be used if a patron would like to use it.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked Mr. Cronwell if he was in agreement with the Historic Resources Commission conditions.
Mr. Cronwell stated, yes.
Commissioner Harkins felt that The Castle Tea Room was an asset to the community and thanked the Board for their efforts in the upkeep of the building.
Mr. Cronwell said that the Board had been very active in engaging the city in trying to resurrect the building.
Commissioner Erickson asked Ms. Day if she felt that the letter from Mr. McElwain was enough for the parking conditions.
Ms. Day stated that Staff would recommend a formal agreement to be recorded with the Register of Deeds.
Commissioner Burress questioned if a variance would not be required.
Ms. Day said that is correct, a variance was not required.
Commissioner Burress inquired about the consequences of parking not being available.
Ms. Day stated that the parking in the neighborhood was competitive.
Commissioner Lawson inquired about a formal agreement for parking and if Mr. McElwain would agree to that.
Ms. Day stated that the parking agreement would be similar to what was done for the parking of Krause Dining. A simple agreement recorded with the Register of Deeds.
Arthur (Tripp) Anderson, Castle Tea Room Board member, said that Mr. McElwain did not feel comfortable signing a formal parking agreement. He did not intend to sell his business but if he did he did not want there to be a tie to it.
Commissioner Burress inquired if the applicant would be willing to notify Staff if the parking arrangement changes and Staff could review and revisit if needed.
Ms. Day stated that Staff would be fine with that.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if there was an informal parking agreement with Barber Emerson Law Firm.
Mr. Anderson replied, no.
Commissioner Harkins stated that the applicant does not own the property with parking and he did not feel that they could require Mr. McElwain to sign a parking agreement. He went on to say that the undocumented agreement already existed and had worked for many years.
PUBLIC HEARING
Lois Schnieder, property owner of several homes in the same block, was not opposed to The Castle Tea Room, but was concerned about the increasing parking problems in that area and would like the parking issue to be reviewed every 1-2 years. When Lilly ran The Castle Tea Room less people owned cars.
Mr. Anderson said that in preparing for this Planning Commission meeting the Board held public meetings/events at The Castle Tea Room and have had many people there to view the plans of The Castle Tea Room. He went on to say that there is always competition for on street parking and it may or may not be related to The Castle Tea Room. KU students and patrons of neighboring businesses use the street for parking as well.
Commissioner Burress asked if there was a condition for annual review of the SUP.
Ms. Day said that condition 3b stated that the property should be inspected annually by Neighborhood Resources. She also said that neighbors can call and report any problems.
Commissioner Jennings did not feel that a formal parking agreement was necessary.
Commissioner Burress thought that condition 5 of the Staff Report should state something similar to “SUP conditionally on informal parking agreement; if change occurs, Staff should evaluate the parking situation and determine if it should be reviewed by the Planning Commission.”
Ms. Day responded that if there was an issue to bring back to the Planning Commission that it certainly could be.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Applicant had no closing comments.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Jennings felt that Staff Report condition 5 should be removed completely.
Commissioner Burress said he would be comfortable with a “watered down” version of condition 5.
Motion by Commissioner Burress to approve the SUP and forward it to City Commission with language replaced by Staff on condition 5 that says the SUP is conditional on the informal parking agreement.
Commissioner Finkeldei motioned to strike condition 3c and modify 4a(iii).
Commissioner Eichhorn seconded the motion.
Commissioner Lawson questioned what would be accomplished by changing the parking condition 5.
Commissioner Burress stated that if the verbal parking agreement stops working then it would be The Castle Tea Room’s duty to tell Staff. It would provide some assurance of positive action if the parking becomes a problem.
Commissioner Haase stated that he would still vote for the SUP even if the parking was not available. He went on to say that the existing parking arrangement seemed to be working.
Commissioner Lawson amended the motion and remove condition 5 and strike references to a parking agreement.
Commissioner Harkins seconded the amended motion.
Commissioner Burress stated he would not support the SUP without the parking condition. He felt it was legitimate to ask for a parking condition.
Commissioner Harris suggested condition 3b be reworded to say the property shall be inspected annually for parking compliance.
Commissioner Haase stated he understood the issue of parking in the area, but at some point challenges with parking have to be accepted. He went on to say that there will always be parking challenges in student oriented areas but The Castle Tea Room was an asset and the community needed to hold onto it even if there was a parking price to pay.
Commissioner Burress motioned to amend the amendment to add Commissioner Harris’ suggestion of modifying condition 3b to say “property shall be inspected by City Staff for sufficient parking….”
Commissioner Harris seconded the motion.
Commissioner Jennings stated that the parking would not change in the area and he felt that people would be willing to walk a block or two to get to The Castle Tea Room.
Commissioner Haase was concerned about using language like “sufficient parking” because it might be defined differently by others.
ACTION
Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to amend the amendment to modify condition 3b to include “property shall be inspected by City Staff for sufficient parking….”
Motion failed 4-6, with Commissioners Burress, Eichhorn, Harris, and Krebs in favor. Commissioners Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins, Jennings, and Lawson voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb voted in favor.
Motioned by Commissioner Lawson, seconded by Commissioner Harkins to amend the motion and motion to remove condition 5 and strike references to a parking agreement.
Motion carried 9-1, with Commissioner Burress in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb voted in the affirmation.
Motioned by Commissioner Lawson, seconded by Commissioner Harkins to approve SUP-03-03-07, a Special Use Permit for an adaptive reuse located at 1313 Massachusetts Street, known as The Castle Tea Room 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 and striking conditions 3c and 4a(iii):
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement.
2. Completion of conditions of approval and release of a permit from the Historic Resources Administrator prior to the release of a site plan for the issuance of a building permit.
3. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following notes:
a. If the owner/operators of the adaptive reuse change in the future then a new Special Use Permit shall be required.
b. Property shall be inspected annually by City Staff for compliance with the Special Use Permit.
c.
Note the Deed Book and Page
reference of the executed off-street parking agreement on the face of the site
plan.
d. Activity shall conclude by 11:00 P.M. on weekdays and by 12:00 P.M. Friday and Saturday night.
e. If night lighting is involved, it shall be shielded from adjacent properties and have cut-off’s to restrict upward escape of the light
f. Outdoor tents shall not be allowed within 25’ of the public right-of-way.
4. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following changes:
a. Parking Summary:
i. On site Parking 11 spaces including two 2 accessible spaces
ii. On street parking 14 spaces
iii.
Shared Parking 16 spaces per
agreement recorded at the Douglas County Register of Deeds Office _______ Book
________ Page.
b. Show and label hitching posts along 13th Street on Sheet A-100
c. Show detail of trash enclosure on face of site plan.
d. Show dimensions of the patio area and the one car garage located at 1313 Massachusetts Street.
5.
Execution and recording of an
off-street parking agreement with the Register of Deeds Office to include
parking on an approved site planned property.
6. Publication of an ordinance per section 20-1306 (j)
Motion unanimously approved 10-0, with Student Commissioner Robb voting in the affirmation.
PC Minutes 4/25/07
ITEM NO. 8: 2007 TIP (PGP)
As MPO, consider revisions to the 2007 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Paul Patterson presented the item, to obligate available Federal transit earmarks in the amount of $1,280,550.00 to acquire fixed-route transit vehicles for the City of Lawrence. Planning Staff recommended that the Planning Commission, acting in its role as MPO, approve the requested amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and transmit the TIP Amendment to KDOT with a request for approval.
Commissioner Harkins asked if there were environmentally friendly buses in the market place today. He felt it would be worth looking into.
Mr. Patterson stated that there are hybrid and electric buses but that the cost is higher.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated that he had discussed environmentally friendly transportation with Cliff Galante, the City Public Transit Administrator and that a better efficiency bus would be about $100,000 more a piece. He also stated that Bio-diesel buses cannot be maintained as well.
Commissioner Harkins stated that it was a cost issue, but it depended on how you frame the costs. The buses produce enormous carbon dioxide and that is a high cost to the environment. He went on to say that if they can make those changes then Lawrence should be the first city in the state to do so. He did not want it to be dismissed just because the buses would be inconvenient to work on. He felt that they should make every effort to make a right decision if possible.
Commissioner Burress wanted to know if there was any action that they could take to encourage reducing the City’s carbon footprint on the environment.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that there was a committee that oversees the bus system and she thought that they probably have had that discussion to some extent. She said that the Planning Commission could certainly make a recommendation to City Commission as part of the purchase.
Commissioner Burress questioned if they were adopting a spending plan.
Ms. Stogsdill clarified that they were approving the TIP.
Commissioner Burress wanted to know if the TIP could be amended to include what steps have been explored to reduce carbon.
Ms. Stogsdill recommended that request be separate. She stated that Cliff Galante cannot apply for the funding until the TIP is approved and amending the TIP might slow the funding process.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Eichhorn wanted the minutes to stand as the Planning Commissions request for the City to look into environmentally friendly buses.
Commissioner Finkeldei also stated he would add this issue to the TAC agenda to address with department heads.
ACTION
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Jennings for the MPO to approve the amendment to the TIP and forward to KDOT for approval.
Motion unanimously approved 10-0, with Student Commissioner Robb voting in the affirmation.
PC Minutes 4/25/07
ITEM NO. 9: CPA-2007-01 (DDW)
CPA-2007-01: Consider initiation of a future public hearing to amend Horizon 2020 by creating Chapter 14 – Specific Plans to incorporate existing and future specific plans as comprehensive plan policy.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Dan Warner presented the item. The comprehensive plan amendment (CPA-2007-01) is for the consideration of creating Chapter 14, Specific Plans. This chapter will incorporate, by reference, existing and future plans into Horizon 2020 as comprehensive plan policy. The chapter will include the Hierarchy of Plans which was adopted by the Planning Commission on June 26, 2006, by the City Commission on August 15, 2006, and by the Board of County Commissioners on September 11, 2006. Future plans will be adopted through a comprehensive plan process and be incorporated by reference into Chapter 14.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission initiate the creation of Chapter 14, Specific Plans of Horizon 2020. Planning staff would develop the proposed chapter and bring it back to the Commission for a review and public hearing at a later date.
Commissioner Burress wanted to know if plans would require approval by the City and the County.
Mr. Warner said the Comprehensive Plan says that governing bodies only act on those of their jurisdiction.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Haase stated that all of the plans he has seen have to be approved before both the City and County bodies.
Ms. Stogsdill the 23rd Street access plan did go to both City and County because it was adjacent to unincorporated areas. The HOP District Plan and Burroughs Creek Plan were only approved by the City.
Commissioner Harkins asked if this was going to be a large project.
Mr. Warner said, no, the intention was to bring it back to Planning Commission in June. The hierarchy of plans are complete we are just adding a couple of paragraphs.
ACTION
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to initiate a future public hearing to amend Horizon 2020 by creating Chapter 14 – Specific Plans to incorporate existing and future specific plans as comprehensive plan policy.
Motion unanimously approved 10-0, with Student Commissioner Robb voting in the affirmation.
PC Minutes 4/25/07
ITEM NO. 10: 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.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle presented the item. Through the review of the proposed Development Code, a number of issues were identified that required “clean up or clarifying text” or are suggested for revision to address public comment. Initiation of the suggested revisions will improve the implementation of the Development Code. TA-01-01-07 represents specific amendments to various articles as outlined in the following table. Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed revisions [TA-01-01-07] to the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” to the City Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed revisions [TA-01-01-07] to the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” to the City Commission.
Motion unanimous approved 10-0, with Student Commissioner Robb voting in the affirmation.
PC Minutes 4/25/07
ITEM NO. 11: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT (JCR)
TA-03-02-07: Consider amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted. Initiated by the Planning Commission at their March 2007 meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle presented the item. Through the review of the proposed Development Code, a number of issues were identified that required “clean up or clarifying text” or are suggested for revision to address public comment. Adoption of the suggested revisions will improve the implementation of the Development Code. TA-03-02-07 represents specific amendments to various articles as outlined in the following table. These revisions were initiated by the Planning Commission at the December 18, 2006 meeting. Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-03-02-07] to Articles 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 15 and 17 of the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” to the City Commission.
Commissioner Lawson pointed out a correction on page 3 where it says they are waiting on December meeting minutes.
Mr. Rexwinkle said he would correct that error.
Commissioner Harris pointed out another correction on page 9 that Mr. Rexwinkle will change.
Commissioner Harris was confused about the use of language in regards to the small collection recycling facility because in one section it said the exceptions would be indoor facilities and then the allowed says indoor (attachment B) They seem to contradict each other.
Mr. Rexwinkle clarified that he did not want to create confusion that they were talking about some collection facilities. If it is outside then it would be a Site Plan, if inside it would not be a Site Plan. Page 12 of the Staff Report states that the definition of a recycling facility was amended. So it lists 3 different types of facilities that are defined as recycling facilities. The amendment only included non-residential areas.
Commissioner Erickson pointed out several grammatical errors that Mr. Rexwinkle will correct.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
ACTION
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Lawson to forward a recommendation for approval with revisions discussed of the proposed revisions [TA-03-02-07] to Articles 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 15 and 17 of the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” to the City Commission.
Motion unanimous approved 10-0, with Student Commissioner Robb voting in the affirmation.
PC Minutes 4/25/07
ITEM NO. 12: AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 3 & 5, COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS (SMS)
TA-08-07-06: Amendments to Articles 3 & 5 of the County Zoning Regulations regarding the definition of lot width and the establishment of setbacks along roads based upon road classification. [Revisions associated with proposed rural development regulations.]
Item 12 was deferred prior to the meeting.
ADJORN 8:30pm