PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 25 & 27, 2007
Meeting Minutes
_______________________________________________________________________
June 25, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Chaney, Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, Harris, Hird, Jennings, Lawson and Moore
Staff present: Stogsdill, Day, J. Miller, M. Miller, Patterson, Pool, and Brown
_______________________________________________________________________
MINUTES
Discussion regarding May 21 & 23, 2007 draft minutes -
Commissioner Harris suggested a few changes.
Bill Mitchell submitted a letter to the Planning Department with suggested changes to the May PC draft minutes. The Commission agreed with the suggested changes.
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Jennings to approve the minutes of the May 21 & 23, 2007 meeting with discussed revisions.
Motion carried, 6-0-3, with Commissioners Chaney, Hird and Moore abstaining.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner Finkeldei advised that TAC met and discussed items that were on the agenda.
Commissioner Jennings informed that CPC had a public hearing on June 7th and met on June 20th about the Southern Development Plan.
Commissioner Harris stated that PC orientation completed Planning Commission orientation and was pleased with the presentations from Staff.
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 1 – FDP for Camson Villas; 430 Eisenhower Drive
Item 3 – CUP for Vesecky Family Farms; 1814 N 600 Road
Item 5 – Rezoning from RS10 to RS5; .954 acres; 523-543 Rockledge
Item 6 – Determination of substantial change
Item 8 – SUP for 637 Tennessee Street
· Memo from Staff regarding communications received
· Letters from the following neighbors:
o Elizabeth MacGonagle, 623 Alabama Street
o Karen Kressin, 626 Ohio Street
o Mike O’Malley, 626 Ohio Street
o Frances Ingemann, 615 Tennessee Street
o Melissa KempSmith, formerly of 637 Tennessee Street
o Burdett & Michel Loomis, 701 Louisiana Street
Item 9B-9D – Rezoning from RS10 & County to RM15; 24.5 acres; 31st & Ousdahl
· Letter from League of Women Voters
Item – Amendment to Horizon 2020, Chapter 5-Residential Land Use
· Letter from League of Women Voters
Changes to draft May PC minutes by Lisa Harris
Memo from Staff regarding changes to draft May PC minutes by Bill Mitchell
Memo and letter regarding Safe Routes to School Program Funding
Letter from Public Works regarding Intelligent Transportation System
Memo from Staff to initiate a text amendment; request from Tim Herndon
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte
· No abstentions
· There were no deferral requests to consider
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2006-2007
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris to nominate Commissioner Eichhorn as Chair.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Motioned by Commissioner Jennings, seconded by Commissioner Lawson to nominate Commissioner Finkeldei as Vice-Chair.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
PC Minutes 6/25/07
ITEM NO. 1: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CAMSON VILLAS; 430 EISENHOWER DRIVE (SLD)
FDP-04-11-07: Final Development Plan for Camson Villas, located at 430 Eisenhower Drive. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for Mallard Homes, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Lawson, seconded by Commissioner Harkins to approve the Final Development Plan for Camson Villas based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Submission and
approval of public improvement plans including sanitary sewer and water
lines plans and
2. Provision of a
revised Final Development Plan to show fire hydrants located between Buildings
J and K, North side of Building F and between Buildings A and B, per Fire
Department Approval.
Motion carried 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda
ITEM NO. 2: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LAKESIDE VISTA; 1429 EAST 900 ROAD (SLD)
PP-05-05-07: Preliminary Plat for Lakeside Vista, located at 1429 East 900 Road. Submitted by Grob Engineering Services, for Robert Voth, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Lawson, seconded by Commissioner Harkins to approve the Preliminary Plat for Lakeside Vista based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition and forwarded to the County Commission for acceptance of easements :
1. Provision of a revised preliminary plat to include a 10’ utility easement along the south property line and a 15’ easement along the west property line per section 20-810 (f)(1) of the Joint City/County Subdivision Regulations.
Motion carried 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC Minutes 6/25/07
ITEM NO. 3: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VESECKY FAMILY FARMS; 1814 N 600 RD (MKM)
CUP-04-07-07: Conditional Use Permit for Vesecky Family Farms, located at 1814 N 600 Road. Submitted by John Vesecky, property owner of record. This is a joint meeting with Baldwin City Planning Commission.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mary Miller presented the item and stated that Baldwin City Planning Commission would not be attending the meeting. Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Lawson inquired about paving to E 1750 Road.
Ms. Miller stated that the Public Works Department said they would be paving up to E 1750 Road.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
John Vesecky, property owner, stated that approximately 2 acres would be used for boat storage. It will be screened with berm and have a rocked surface road, surrounded by chain link fence. The dinner theatre is approximately 500 feet off of the road and would be tiered. He stated the berries were not ready yet for harvest. When the berries on the south get going then he will put in an area to sell them, about 2 years in the future.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if an amplification system would be installed for the outdoor theatre and if it would be a portable or permanent.
Mr. Vesecky stated that there would probably be some sort of portable speakers but that they would not be very loud.
Commissioner Harris asked if there were other houses on the gravel road between the property and paved road and if traffic coming to the Vesecky property be passing the other properties on the way.
Mr. Vesecky replied, yes.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Mr. Vesecky if his property was part of the benefit district that will contribute to the paving of the road.
Mr. Vesecky responded, no, he was not in that area.
Commissioner Harris inquired if Mr. Vesecky or any of the neighbors use dust control on the road.
Mr. Vesecky said that he does but that it is getting expensive.
PUBLIC HEARING
David Brown, neighbor to the Vesecky’s, discussed a low water bridge on his road and did not see how an RV and vehicle could pass each other on the bridge. He stated that assuming all the traffic would come in off of 1750 Road was not accurate. He was concerned about the road not being blacktop and the amount of traffic that would be generated. He was also concerned about noise, pollution and dust. He inquired if the Vesecky’s would pay for the dust prevention. He went on to say that the existing access point for the boat and RV storage was terrible in the wintertime. The trees on the side of the road limit vision and south of the entrance is a hill. He was concerned about traffic flow and dangerous road conditions. Mr. Brown was not opposed to the selling of produce but had concerns about the outdoor theatre having bands.
Commissioner Hird asked Mr. Brown to show on a map where he lived in comparison to the Vesecky property and where the roads were that they have problems keeping gravel on.
Mr. Brown pointed on a map where he lives and where his dad lives.
Commissioner Harkins inquired about how much traffic would come from the north.
Mr. Brown replied that if people come from Kansas City or Lawrence they would come from K-10 past his home. Baldwin visitors would come from the south.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the distance from 600 Road to 700 Road was a mile.
Mr. Brown responded, yes.
Barbara Coggburn, was concerned about the road to the boat storage being narrow. She felt that any more traffic would put a strain on the already busy road. She was opposed to the project and felt it would be dangerous to have more traffic.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Vesecky stated that the bridge that everyone was concerned about had plans by the County Engineers to replace it but he was not sure when that would happen. He was willing to work with getting the trees and such cleaned up along the road. He did not feel that traffic for boat and RV storage would be great during the winter time so he did not feel that winter time traffic should be a concern. He went on to say that there was dust on all roads and there already are grain trucks and construction equipment using that road.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Jennings felt that this was two separate issues. He was not concerned about the RV and boat storage because the applicant alluded to not much traffic generated. He stated that produce stands would mostly be daylight traffic and the dinner theatre could have issues of noise and blind traffic. He felt that nighttime traffic would be dense traffic for a short period of time. He stated that he would not mind if there was a berry stand up the road from his own home, but he would probably mind having a theatre with noise & lights.
Commissioner Hird lives in the country and understood the impact of dust and traffic. He was less troubled by the dinner theatre which would be a total of 150 people but if it expanded beyond that he would be concerned.
Commissioner Harris said she shared the same concerns that Commissioner Jennings had about 150 people traveling on the roads 3 times a week was quite a bit.
Commissioner Eichhorn inquired about Stoney Point Farm being a CUP.
Commissioner Harris responded that Stoney Point was on a paved road.
Commissioner Jennings asked about provisions for alcohol.
Ms. Miller stated that alcohol was not addressed.
Commissioner Jennings stated that since the main concern was traffic that alcohol may be an issue.
Commissioner Harris stated that one of the plans mentioned a reception hall so that might lead to alcohol.
Commissioner Moore wanted to know if a liquor license was typically attached with a CUP.
Ms. Miller stated that the Planning Commission could put a restriction with the CUP not to allow alcohol.
Commissioner Harkins recognized the limitations on agriculture uses and felt this was an opportunity to add businesses and use the land for productive purposes. He was inclined to be in favor of the project because of the economic opportunities but understood the concerns expressed.
Commissioner Eichhorn agreed with Commissioner Harkins about the agri-business being incorporated. He felt the dinner theatre would create a unique experience but that the boat and RV storage did not seem to be that unique. He also felt that 2 acres for boat storage was large. He stated that a benefit district was formed due to the township not being able to keep up with the traffic they already have and that he liked everything about the proposal except the boat storage.
Commissioner Harkins stated he was more inclined to be in support of the boat and RV storage because of the minimal traffic. He did not feel that the boat and RV storage would generate much traffic at night but that the outdoor theatre would have intense traffic.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that the township indicated to Staff that this would not create problems and they would be able to keep up with maintenance.
Commissioner Lawson asked Staff about the extension of the paved road.
Ms. Miller pointed on map to the location of the paving.
Commissioner Lawson asked Mr. Vesecky how important the dinner theatre was to his current development needs.
Mr. Vesecky stated that the dinner theatre had nothing to do with marketing. He said he would build the boat and RV storage first and then the theatre. The produce sales area was still 2-3 years down the road because the berries were not ready yet.
Commissioner Hird inquired about how many boats would be stored on the land.
Mr. Vesecky stated he was not sure how many boats would fit yet but that a boat would take up less room than an RV.
Sharon Vesecky, property owner, stated the reason they thought of the dinner theatre was because they wanted to provide as much homegrown food as possible, such as corn, turkey, beef, berries, and other fresh vegetables.
Commissioner Lawson stated that Commissioner Harkins addressed an aspect of realities of farming not being lucrative. One of the Staff comments from the Staff Report pointed out that agri-business sales and marketing would be different but provided a positive alternative to developments in rural areas. He felt that the Commission should be in supportive of these economic opportunities.
Commissioner Eichhorn agreed with Commissioner Lawson but said that boat and RV storage did not seem to be appropriate.
Commissioner Lawson felt that if the property was properly designed and screened he would like to make the project come together.
Commissioner Harris asked Staff about the traffic for boat storage.
Ms. Miller said she did not assume the lake to the south would be the only lake used by people storing boats.
Commissioner Lawson asked Mr. Vesecky about the local food being used for the dinner theatre and wanted to know if seasonality played a part in the dinner theatre just being a seasonal event.
Mr. Vesecky stated that the dinner theatre would probably be used mostly during the summer and fall.
Commissioner Jennings stated that a comment was made earlier about people who live in the area might store their boats on the Vesecky property but he felt that people storing their boats would not be people who lived in the area because people in the area would have space to store their own boat.
Commissioner Hird said he was less excited about the boat storage than the agri-business. Economically he felt it was important. He suggested signs on the road could decrease the impact on the neighbors. He also wanted to know if the applicant would consider not having the boat storage.
Mr. Vesecky said he was looking more toward the boat and RV storage as the main priority but he would like to both the storage and dinner theatre.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harkins, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Vesecky Family Farms which will include a farmer’s market, outdoor dinner/theater and exterior boat storage and forwarding of it to the County Commission with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. A note must be added to the plan stating that “ADA accessible spaces shall be designed to meet the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines and shall be signed according to these standards”. Three spaces closest to the dinner theatre must be labeled as ADA accessible.
2. The outdoor dinner/theater will be limited to 3 events per week. Late night events are limited to Friday and Saturday nights and must conclude by midnight.
3. The plan must include the following information
regarding the screening of the boat storage facility: A 3’ landscaped berm must
be constructed on the east and south sides of the boat storage facility. The
landscaping may be completely coniferous trees, or a combination of deciduous
and coniferous trees at a ratio of 2 to 1. Coniferous trees must be at least 6
– 8’ tall (balled and burlapped) and deciduous trees must be 2 – 2 ½”
caliper. (This must be noted on the plan.) The trees must be planted on 15’
centers
4. A circulation plan must be submitted to the planning office showing the drive aisles and circulation pattern since the facility has only one entrance. The number of boats that can be stored in this facility must be listed on the plan.
5. The parking layout for the boats must be shown on the plan and delineated on the site to provide for the orderly storage of boats.
6. The plan must provide the dimensions of the Farmer’s Market building.
7. This parking area near N 600 Road must be setback from the road a minimum of 15’. and be screened from the road with a view reducing barrier such as a berm between 3’ and 4’ high, compact evergreen shrubbery and/or trees or a combination of berm and landscaping. The screening treatment must be noted on the plan.
8. The CUP will be administratively reviewed in 5 years
9. The CUP will expire at the end of 10 years, unless an application for renewal is approved by the local governing body
10. The Douglas County Health Dept has approved the use of portable chemical toilets for the first year of operation. If the outdoor dinner theater use is continued beyond the first year a septic system must be installed per the Douglas County Health Department regulations. The applicant must also provide the Douglas County Health Department with information regarding water supply and solid waste disposal at that time.
Commissioner Harris stated she would not vote in favor because of road safety and conditions but that after benefit district improvements are done she might vote differently.
Motion approved, 6-3 with Commissioners Harris, Eichhorn, Jennings in opposition.
PC Minutes 6/25/07
ITEM NO. 4: AMENDMENTS TO COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS (LAP)
TA-04-03-07: Amendments to the County Zoning Regulations regarding incorporating the City of Eudora’s source water protection zones as overlay zones and associated protection measures. Initiated by the Planning Commission on 4/25/07.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Lisa Pool presented the item.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if there was a timeline for initiating additional text amendments for overlay zones and protection measures for the remainder of Douglas County.
Ms. Pool replied that it will be included in the long range work plan.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Lawson asked if discharge of contaminants to a public treatment system would be a requirement throughout the county if the measures were implemented county-wide.
Ms. Pool stated that the protection measures now under construction are specific to Eudora and that Doug Helmke from the Kansas Rural Water Association was present for questions.
Doug Helmke, Kansas Rural Water Association, would have preferred to have seen more specific details in the plan. He was hopeful that it could be amended easily in case additional contaminants are found in the future. He went on to say that it is still a very new process and they hope it will be flexible in the future. He was not sure what kind of discharge there would be from construction and mining equipment.
Commissioner Lawson said that when it was suggested that this would be ultimately applied to the county, then that raised the question of what that means to the parts of the county that do not have access to the sewer system.
Commissioner Harkins stated that he thought they were now looking at a very specific piece of geography, and that there would have to be some sort of justification to expand the overlay zone. He asked Staff if anyone from the County Health Department had any comments.
Ms. Pool replied no, the County Health Department did not have any comments, but that the Planning Commission’s recommendation would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, so there would still be time for comments.
Commissioner Harkins commended Eudora for developing a source water plan before it was required. He would like the County Health Department to review and comment on the proposed amendments.
Commissioner Hird stated that he did not understand some of the contaminant categories and inquired about what “veterinary services, specialties” meant.
Ms. Pool replied that the contaminant categories are described as such in the City of Eduora’s Source Water Protection Plan.
Commissioner Lawson asked Commissioner Harkins if he was suggesting that they seek comments from the County Health Department before acting on the amendment.
Commissioner Harkins said he would prefer to find out all the information prior to adopting.
Commissioner Lawson asked Staff if there would be any reason not to table the item.
Ms. Stogsdill said that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation that the Health Department comment on the item prior to consideration of the item by the Board of County Commissioners.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harkins, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to approve, subject to final review and comment by the County Health Department and forward a recommendation for approval of TA-04-03-07 (the addition of Article 22A to the Douglas County Zoning Regulations) to the Board of County Commissioners.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
PC Minutes 6/25/07
ITEM NO. 5: RS10 TO RS5; .954 ACRES; 523-543 ROCKLEDGE (MKM)
Z-11-28-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately .954 acres, from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) to RS5 (Single-Dwelling Residential). The property is located at 523-543 Rockledge. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for LC Anuff, property owner of record. Deferred from the May meeting.
Item 5 deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 6/25/07
ITEM NO. 6: DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE (LAP)
Consider affidavit submitted in accordance with 20-1808(b) – Limitation on Successive Petitions on behalf of property owners and applicants for the proposed development located at the northwest corner of W. 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive. Submitted by Ray Frankenberg for 6 Wak Land Investments, LLC and Wal-Mart Real Estate Trust.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Lisa Pool presented item with the following information:
The Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission, during its meeting on Wednesday, August 30, 2006, voted 5-5 to recommend approval of PDP-06-06-06: Wal-Mart Preliminary Development Plan, northwest corner of 6th and Wakarusa. As the vote resulted in a tie, the motion failed; thus resulting in a recommendation for denial of the plan. The City Commission, during its meeting on Tuesday, October 24, 2006, voted 3-2 to deny PDP-06-06-06. It is also important to note that also during its October 24, 2006 meeting, the City Commission voted 3-2 to table the associated rezoning requests (Z-06-16A-06 and Z-06-16B-06) until an alternate plan meeting the public’s concerns is brought forward for the Commission’s consideration.
The applicant submitted a new Preliminary Development Plan application for the northwest corner of 6th and Wakarusa to be reviewed under the City’s previous Zoning Regulations. The process for submitting a previously-denied Preliminary Development Plan for the same property under the City’s previous Zoning Regulations is described below.
Per Section 20-1808 of the previous Zoning Regulations, no application for a Planned Unit Development shall be accepted by the Planning Commission if an application for the same property has been denied by the City Commission within the preceding 12 months. Irrespective of the previous statement, an application for rehearing of the request may be accepted by the Planning Commission within 12 months after a denial if it is accompanied by an affidavit setting forth facts which, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, constitute a substantial change from the original application. All requests for rehearing are included on the Planning Commission agenda as a non-public hearing item.
In keeping with the process outlined by the City’s Zoning Regulations, the applicant has submitted a request for rehearing of a Preliminary Development Plan for the northwest corner of 6th and Wakarusa in the form of an affidavit. This affidavit is attached. Copies of the original 2006 Preliminary Development Plan and the new Preliminary Development Plan are also attached.
The Planning Commission may determine that the application constitutes a substantial change from the application that was denied in October, 2006, or the Planning Commission may determine that the application does not constitute a substantial change from the application that was denied in October, 2006. If the Planning Commission determines that the application constitutes a substantial change, the new Preliminary Development Plan application will be advertised, and a public hearing will be held at the July Planning Commission meeting.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Todd Thompson, attorney on behalf of the applicant, stated that Bill Newsome & Doug Compton were also present at the meeting. Ray Frankenberg was not able to attend. He stated that Wal-Mart and the owner submitted the substantial change request because the rezoning requests were currently tabled. Rather than wait until the Fall to resubmit the revised plan, they would like to get the project going as soon as possible. Mr. Thompson went on to say that although Staff was not required by the Code to give a recommendation, the Interim Planning Director, Sheila Stogsdill, indicated to him that it was a substantial change. He felt that moving the building along Wakarusa Drive was a substantial change. Wal-Mart purchased another piece of land and has now requested a rezoning request for Open Space for open-air detention. Mr. Thompson said that these two changes were substantial changes and that almost every change made was as a direct result of comments from Staff, Planning Commission and City Commission.
Commissioner Moore inquired if there was a change in the number of turn lanes on Wakarusa Drive.
Mr. Thompson stated that there were no changes to the turn lanes.
Commissioner Jennings stated that on the new plan on the east side of the building there was something called “seating area” that looked like it had changed. He wondered if that area was some sort of courtyard.
Mr. Thompson replied that it was a parking area with seating and that they can move the labeling on the plan to show the seating not in the parking area.
Commissioner Harkins asked Ms. Stogsdill if she agreed with Mr. Thompson’s characterizations of her comments about there being a substantial change.
Ms. Stogsdill replied, yes, she did feel the changes made were substantial.
Bill Newsome said that there were 12 items listed in the affidavit as being changed. Another example of the changes includes the 35 traditional parking spaces on the south end being revised to green pavers.
Commissioner Finkeldei supported Ms. Stogsdill’s determination and felt the information given does show a substantial change. He felt that they should move forward and support Staff in that determination.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harkins, to determine that the application constitutes a substantial change from the application that was denied on October 24, 2006.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated for the record that the Planning Commission had never been a part of the hearings and lawsuit that are going forward.
Commissioner Harris stated that in the past her concern for the project had been the size related to the plan for the area. She did not feel that it had been addressed in the changed plan, but she did agree that there are substantial changes.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
PC Minutes 6/25/07
ITEM NO. 7:
Consider the following recommendations from the 06/05/07 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC):
ITEM NO. 7A: AMEND TIP
Amend Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to include federal earmark for ITS deployment.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Paul Patterson presented the item.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to approve the requested amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and transmit the TIP Amendment to KDOT (Kansas Department of Transportation) with a request for approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
PC Minutes 6/25/07
ITEM NO. 7B: AMEND TIP
Amend Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to add bridge replacement project at 946 E 1000 Road for Douglas County.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Paul Patterson presented the item.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the requested amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and transmit the TIP Amendment to KDOT with a request for approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
PC Minutes 6/25/07
ITEM NO. 7C: AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN LETTERS
Authorize Chair to sign letters of endorsement for transportation projects.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Paul Patterson presented the item.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Chaney to authorize the Chair to sign letters of endorsement for the requested transportation projects.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
PC Minutes 6/25/07
ITEM NO. 7D: ADOPT MPO BY-LAWS
Receive TAC recommendation to adopt by-laws for the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
STAFF PRESENTATION
Paul Patterson presented the item.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Finkeldei was in favor of the changes that Commissioner Harris would discuss.
Commissioner Eichhorn advised Planning Commissioners that Commissioner Harris was the Chair of the T2030 committee.
Commissioner Harris suggested the following changes:
Article 2, change the wording to add “annually” to the sentence Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and annually review the adequacy of current and future transportation plans and programs.
The Chair would appoint other Chairs of the committee.
Section 6.1, change the wording to The MPO shall have a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to assist the MPO with collecting information, performing technical reviews, formulating recommendations and setting priorities for the UPWP and the TIP, and other matters as directed by the MPO.
Section 6.2, article 8, change wording to The above and foregoing bylaws are hereby adopted as the bylaws of the MPO and are effective immediately.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that T2030 would be reviewed by a consultant, and the MPO would decide what suggestions to take into consideration. He asked Commissioner Harris if she was okay with the make-up of T2030.
Commissioner Harris said that the T2030 committee should include representatives from other cities.
Commissioner Harkins stated that they had not talked about changes to the MPO yet, but that there were several things that were designed to make the current system work.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated that the MPO would exist in these by-laws. The earliest would be the first quarter after T2030 is adopted and these would guide the MPO until then, around 6-7 months.
Commissioner Harkins stated that a lot of work went into this in making the current arrangement work and that he would have to be convinced not to change this.
Commissioner Moore said that if they adopt this then they could move forward with Commissioner Harris’ recommendation of having a Eudora, Baldwin or Lecompton be involved.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated that Lecompton, Baldwin and Eudora would be included.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Chaney to adopt the TAC recommendation on the MPO By-Laws with changes suggested by Commissioner Harris to include under 6.2 members from Eudora, Baldwin and Lecompton.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
PC Minutes 6/25/07
ITEM NO. 7E: CONSIDER RESTRUCTURING MPO
Receive TAC recommendation to direct staff to investigate restructuring the MPO with the intent that a new structure would be implemented within the first quarter following adoption of the Long-Range Transportation Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION ON ITEMS 7A-7E
Commissioner Finkeldei stated that currently the MPO was grandfathered in membership so it would require at least 1 City Commissioner to be on the MPO and also require 1 member of KDOT to sit in on the MPO. The MPO should be made up of representatives from the governing bodies who fund the TIP. There needs to be a more responsive MPO and have more balance. He went on to say that they should ask Staff to restructure the MPO and give structure to it.
Commissioner Harkins asked Commissioner Finkeldei if he envisioned something like a steering committee for the MPO, similar to the T2030 committee.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that it would consist of probably 2 City Commissioners, 2 Planning Commissioners, 1 Board of County Commissioner, 1 KDOT member, and 1 rotating member for Lecompton, Baldwin, Eudora who would advise TAC.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that this would happen after the Long Range Plan was complete.
Ms. Stogsdill said that this had been an item that several years ago KDOT gave a presentation to Planning Commission about MPO structure. It came up in the triennial review and was noted last fall that the MPO was grandfathered and as the planning area has now grown to encompass the county was now more of an issue than when it was first grandfathered. There needs to be some sort of tie between the funding side and the side that makes the decisions. She went on to say that we are the only one in the state that does not have a governing body in the MPO.
Anson Gock, Senior Transportation Planner, the Governor designates the MPO boundary. This is what the Federal Highway and Federal Transit would like to see.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei to direct staff to investigate restructuring the MPO with the intent that a new structure would be implemented within the first quarter following adoption of the Long-Range Transportation Plan.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
PC Minutes 6/25/07
MISC. ITEM NO. 1:
Review Planning Commission subcommittee project list.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that there were vacancies on several committees.
Commissioner Harris inquired about the Planning Orientation being done every year.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that if there were 2 or more new Planning Commissioners than Planning Orientation should be done every year.
Appointments to committees will be made in the near future.
MISC. ITEM NO. 2:
Receive summary of housing program providers.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that at a previous mid-month meeting Margene Schwartz, Neighborhood Resources Department, came and talked to Planning Commission and provided a letter to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Moore inquired about the reasoning for it.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that mid-month meetings were an opportunity to answer questions that the Planning Commission might have.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that at the July 11th mid-month meeting there would be 2 transportation items and that the August mid-month meeting would be the 15th of August.
Commissioner Harris thought from now till November there would be some sort of T2030 discussion during the mid-month meetings.
Commissioner Eichhorn said he would like to continue having discussion about the big projects.
MISC. ITEM NO. 3:
Initiation of Text Amendment.
The Planning Commission was given communication from Tim Herndon outlining concerns with the ‘actual field survey’ requirements for preliminary plats that is contained in 20-812(a)(1)(viii) which reads:
"Sec. 20-812(a)(1)(viii) - Show topography (contour interval not greater than 5 feet), based on actual field survey performed within the last 12 months and tied to the vertical control benchmarks included with the description."
Mr. Herndon requested that the Commission initiate a text amendment to this portion of the Subdivision Regulations for consideration at a future public hearing.
Ms. Stogsdill said she advised the applicant that the Text Amendment request would be provided to Planning Commission and she felt it was worth exploring more.
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Hird to initiate text amendment and direct staff to analyze the request and schedule for a future public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Recess at 9:00 P.M. until 6:30 P.M. on June 27, 2007.
PC Minutes 6/27/07
_______________________________________________________________________
Reconvene June 27, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Chaney, Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, Harris, Jennings, Lawson, Moore and Student Commissioner Robb
Staff present: Stogsdill, Leininger, J. Miller, M. Miller, Rexwinkle, Warner, and Brown
_______________________________________________________________________
BEGIN PUBLIC HEARING (JUNE 27, 2007):
COMMUNICATIONS
Sheila Stogsdill stated that the property owners for Item 8 requested a deferral due to their attorney being out of town. Item 8 will be heard by Planning Commission in July.
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte
· No abstentions were declared
· Item 8 was deferred to July Planning Commission
PC Minutes 6/27/07
ITEM NO. 8: SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR 637 TENNESSEE (SLD)
SUP-04-05-07: Special Use Permit for renovations at 637 Tennessee Street. Submitted by Serina Hearn and Tony Backus, for Serina Hearn, Rainbow Works LLC, property owner of record.
Deferred to July Planning Commission meeting.
PC Minutes 6/27/07
ITEM NO. 9A: ANNEXATION OF 52 ACRES; 31ST & OUSDAHL (MKM)
A-05-04-07: Annexation of approximately 52 acres located at 31st & Ousdahl. Submitted by Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A., for RA & JG Limited Company, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mary Miller presented the item. She discussed item 9A-9D together.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Steve Stamos, of Fairfield Residential, stated that Fairfield Residential is a national developer and they have two very strong financial partners that back them. He showed a slide show of different types of housing projects that they have developed in other areas and a conceptual plan of this proposal.
He said there would be no access to 31st or Louisiana but that there would be two access points to Ousdahl. He showed on a map where the detention center would be on the property at 31st & Ousdahl.
He went on to say that this would be a gated community with onsite management 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (some of their other projects provide private courtesy lodging for police officers), and an intended bus stop on site. He also stated there would be quarterly inspections of each unit.
He provided a chart showing “intersection level of service delay thresholds.” He showed traffic studies that show traffic will not become worse due to the development. There was only one drop in service, from A to B.
Mr. Stamos would like for conditions 4 & 5 (j & k) on the Preliminary Plat Staff Report to be stricken. He would prefer those conditions be applied in the future when the rezoning is changed for the southern part of the tract. He would like further discussion on condition 5f and was willing to make that part of the future rezoning. He also did not feel that condition 5l asking for a roundabout was appropriate. He would like all of these conditions deferred until future rezoning.
Commissioner Harris asked Mr. Stamos what year the traffic study trip generation used to calculate peak hours was done.
Mr. Stamos replied, November, 2006.
Commissioner Harris wanted clarification on level of service F. She stated that there was nothing lower than F so you could add another 100 seconds to that level and it would still remain F.
Tom Swenson, TransSystems, stated that F was the lowest level and there was some uncertainly once that threshold is reached because beyond an F would be difficult to predict.
Mr. Stamos said that trips being generated was an additional 15 trips during morning peak time.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired to Staff about the roundabout at 33rd & Ousdahl.
Ms. Miller stated that the roundabout was a recommendation by the City Traffic Engineer.
Commissioner Finkeldei thought that the roundabout was on the 31st Street corridor plan.
Ms. Stogsdill said that is the standard improvement when you have a collector intersection.
Commissioner Lawson wanted to know if Staff had additional thoughts about the requests the applicant made about striking conditions.
Ms. Miller stated that ROW was usually dedicated with the Plat, so unless the developer was planning on replatting, when they rezone the southern portion, the conditions in the Staff Report were appropriate.
Commissioner Harkins asked if there was any reason why 33rd & Ousdahl could not be extended.
Ms. Miller said there was nothing that would stop the road from being extended to the east.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that the tire company on 31st Street encroached upon the ROW.
Ms. Miller said that the ROW is what the corridor study recommends and that other new development were referred to provide the additional ROW.
Commissioner Jennings asked the applicant about replating.
Mr. Stamos stated that they are asking for the southern tract to be rezoned to preserve their rights for water since rezoning it would allow them the right to a pump station. He said that they have not even thought out the development for the southern part of the tract and would prefer more time to think about it.
Commissioner Harris inquired about density for the zoning.
Ms. Miller stated that the plan that the applicant submitted showed about 13.5 units per acre. The zoning district permits up to 15 units per acre.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Lawson, to approve the requested annexation of approximately 52 acres located at the southeast corner of the intersection of W 31st Street and Ousdahl Road and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings found in the body of the staff report subject to the following condition:
1. Prior to issuance of any building permit the funds must be placed in escrow for the future modification and decommissioning of the temporary pump station.
Motion carried 7-1, with Commission Harris voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb voted in favor.
PC Minutes 6/27/07
ITEM NO. 9B: RS-10 & COUNTY A TO RM-15; 24.5 ACRES; 31ST & OUSDAHL (MKM)
Z-05-05-07: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 24.5 acres, from RS-10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) & County A (Agricultural) to RM-15 (Multi-Dwelling Residential). The property is located at 31st & Ousdahl. Submitted by Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A., for RA & JG Limited Company, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mary Miller presented the item. She discussed item 9A-9D together.
PUBLIC HEARING
Jeanne Ellermeier, 2529 Louisiana, appreciated the applicant giving a presentation to neighbors. She said the traffic will still be a problem with over 800 beds of upscale students which she did not feel would take public transportation bus system. She did not agree that this would not increase traffic along 31st Street and that the entire area has a lot of decisions still to be made with the Southern Development Plan. She felt it would be beneficial to see the Southern Development Plan first before deciding on the proposal. She wanted the larger picture to be considered, not just a single development. She thought that The Exchange might be okay under some circumstances, but until that area was planned out in a way that would benefit the entire city, she wanted the project deferred.
Joyce Wolf, Indian Hills Neighborhood Association, agreed with the League of Women Voters letter. She also agreed with Ms. Ellermeier regarding the Southern Development Plan. She did not believe that the majority of trips would go out on Iowa. She felt that students would go other places besides campus so there would be traffic concerns. She was also concerned about the site layout and would like to have seen the Site Plan prior to this evening. She also expressed concern about the impact on the nearby wetlands. She did not feel it was an appropriate location and the proposal should come back before Planning Commission after the Southern Development Plan was complete.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Ms. Wolf if she attended the neighborhood meetings with the developer.
Ms. Wolf said, yes, and that they went reasonably well and she had the opportunity to ask the developer questions. She appreciated the applicant taking the time to inform the neighborhood on what they planned to do.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that there had not been a Site Plan submitted to the Planning office so there was no Site Plan to review at this time.
Betty Lichtwardt, League of Women Voters, was concerned about consistent Staff interpretation of the new Development Code. She stated that the proposed Site Plan was not binding and that this type of conventional development was a major concern for the League of Women Voters because when a rezoning is approved, plat conditions are based on what the Ordinance permits. Only with a Planned Development Plan can you place conditions that would guarantee that it would be developed in that way. With zoning, if the development falls through then the zoning is still in place. She was also concerned because the area planning was still underway.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Stamos stated that this is a student project and that the addendum to the TIS study shows that for the most part students would be traveling at off times and would use the bus system. He went on to say that the Site Plan that showed the buildings had not changed from when it was showed to the Indian Hills Neighborhood Association. He stated that they were extremely sensitive to the wetland area and they have done multiple studies to not encroach on the wetlands. They are also working to minimize their impact on the Riparian area on site. He said that according to Federal law they cannot do anything that would have detrimental effect on the wetlands. He also stated that the west side of Iowa had similar transition use of multi-family between commercial and lower density residential.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired about the Site Plan process.
Ms. Miller stated that the Site Plan will go to different City departments for review and those get returned to Planning with comments. Staff would then make recommendations to the applicant and the applicant would give Staff a revised plan. The applicant would then have a certain amount of time to get a building permit.
Commissioner Harkins inquired why Staff proposed to move ahead with this project prior to the Southern Development Plan being complete.
Ms. Miller stated that it was not known when the Southern Development Plan would be adopted.
Ms. Stogsdill stated this was similar to the Southeast Area Plan. An area was permitted to develop, which was a suitable development. Staff discussed this internally and decided to treat this development similarly.
Commissioner Harkins asked about the new transportation plan.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that during the next T2030 discussion it will be an overall broad look at what improvements are needed for the entire community and that 31st Street has already been identified for improvement.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked why an area plan was required sometimes but not always.
Ms. Stogsdill replied that if it were in a fringe area then that would be the time to wait and examine that area but there is a history of looking at this area and it is an infill site.
Commissioner Harris asked Staff to address the letter from the League of Women Voters.
Ms. Miller went over the points of the letter and agreed the area plan had not been completed.
· This is an application for rezoning to an RM District. There is much that is still not regulated in conventional RM districts.
· The potential population concentration would be inordinately high in this location in the city.
· The proposal was presented earlier and was rejected as being premature. The sewerage was inadequate, and the area planning was in process. This situation has not changed, and requires that the developer build a pump station.
· The traffic study indicates that most of the traffic will use Iowa Street rather than Louisiana. We suggest that this burden on 31st Street, especially at the overloaded corner of 31st & Iowa, could have the same negative impact on the city as the potential problems for the neighborhoods bordering Louisiana.
· Adding to the existing surplus of new apartments could cause the student population, where they now have access to the Downtown, to shift to the periphery of the city with potentially negative effects on the CBD.
Commissioner Moore asked Staff if conditions 4 & 5 are typically done in the platting process.
Ms. Miller said the agreement was very common and that they are agreeing not to protest the benefit district.
Commissioner Harkins asked what the process to get the solution to traffic was.
Ms. Stogsdill replied that there are multiple processes. One would be to have a decision east of Iowa that would allow for street improvements to proceed. If that decision were made then decisions as to what kind of improvements would be necessary at 31st and Louisiana would come forward in a CIP plan and then typically put in TIP, which would be determined through Public Works how it would be funded.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the process would move through the Public Works Department.
Ms. Stogsdill replied, correct.
Commissioner Jennings stated that all four sides of the project were in the County.
Ms. Stogsdill said the City would need to annex the property.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the extension of the sewer system was normal.
Ms. Stogsdill replied, yes.
Ms. Miller said that the applicant would not be providing their own sewer, they will still use city sewer; the applicant is just providing their own extension to the city sewer.
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired about dedicating the roads because the typical process was to dedicate at the platting stage. He wanted to know if the plan changes later but the road has not been built, how they would take that into account.
Ms. Stogsdill said that it could be vacated and realigned with a future plat. Typically if there was some change in alignment, someone who purchases the property and moves forward with development would know that intention upfront. Realignment would not be difficult, if the developer did not want the road to extend, that might be difficult.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated that none of the previous plans predicted low density residential, and did not feel it would be appropriate to stay low density with commercial zoning across Ousdahl. He did not feel that more commercial was needed and thought that medium density was a very rational use for the location. The Southern Development Plan still has to go to City Commission and County Commisison so it would be a while before it was passed. He was not sure that T2030 could do anything for the intersection of 31st & Louisiana and that there was not a great solution for the intersection. He agreed that more traffic would go down Iowa but that the only alternative would be to wait until 31st & Louisiana was fixed to approve this project, which may not be for quite some time. He felt that this would have a minimum impact during AM & PM peak hours.
Commissioner Jennings agreed with Commissioner Finkeldei and felt the fix would be to add a bypass. A surface street would probably not fix the intersection. 31st & Iowa works well now and he has used it for 30 years and felt that the intersection was working the best it has ever worked. The Southern Development Plan that is in the works was showing medium density in this area.
Commissioner Harkins voted in favor of the project last time and was not concerned about the traffic at 31st & Iowa. He argued that the area plan being out of date was the Planning Commissions fault and recommended action be taken. He stated there was some degree of rationale in his mind to stall the project since the area plan was not done yet. The Planning Commission announced that they were doing an area plan and appeared to be sincere about creating a plan, if the Planning Commission made a decision right in the middle of creating this plan they may damage the Planning Commission institution in the public eye. He did not want to hold up development but was concerned about the credibility of the Planning Commission in the public’s view.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that the area plan was in the process and he agreed with Commissioner Harkins.
Commissioner Moore asked if there was no area plan when the project came to Planning Commission previously.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that there was an area plan but it was outdated.
Commissioner Finkeldei felt it was appropriate to move forward because the application came forward when the Southern Development Plan was outdated. The applicant returned after the time-frame he had been given for completion of the plan and the Southern Development Plan is not done, so he did not feel it set precedence.
Commissioner Harris agreed with Commissioner Harkins. The area plan was taking longer but it was being done in good faith and 6 months ago they had to guess at how long it would take. She felt the plan was a big project and the Planning Commission should wait for it to be in place before approving this project.
Commissioner Jennings agreed with Commissioner Harkins too and felt that if the applicant was trying to sneak this in prior to the completion of the area plan then he might feel differently, but since the use was compatible with uses being recommended in the ‘draft’ plan, there was no opposition to the ‘Land Use’ but all opposition was related to traffic. The Southern Development Plan would not affect the traffic issue.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to approve the rezoning request [Z-05-05-07] for 24.5 acres from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) and County A (Agricultural) Districts to RM15 (Multi-Dwelling Residential) District and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance
Motion carried 5-3, with Commissions Eichhorn, Harkins, and Harris voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in opposition.
PC Minutes 6/27/07
ITEM NO. 9C: COUNTY A TO UR; 38.6 ACRES; 31ST & OUSDAHL (MKM)
Z-05-06-07: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 38.6 acres, from County A (Agricultural) to UR (Urban Reserve). The property is located at 31st & Ousdahl. Submitted by Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A., for RA & JG Limited Company, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mary Miller presented the item. She discussed item 9A-9D together.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Lawson to approve the rezoning request [Z-05-06-07] for 38.6 acres from County A (Agricultural) District to UR (Urban Reserve) District and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance
Motion carried 5-3, with Commissions Eichhorn, Harkins, and Harris voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in opposition.
PC Minutes 6/27/07
ITEM NO. 9D: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE EXCHANGE; 31ST & OUSDAHL (MKM)
PP-05-06-07: Preliminary Plat for The Exchange, located at 31st & Ousdahl. Submitted by Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A., for RA & JG Limited Company, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mary Miller presented the item. She discussed item 9A-9D together.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to approve the Preliminary Plat of Exchange at Lawrence subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for construction of future minor arterial road on the east border;
2. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future signalization and intersection improvements at Louisiana and 31st Streets.
3. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future street improvements to W 31st Street.
4. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for extension of Ousdahl Road through the property.
5. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for extension of W 33rd Street through the property.
6. Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for any necessary permit for development of the wetland shown on the plat and provide the Planning Office with a copy of the permit, or with documentation showing that a permit is not needed.
7. Provision of a revised Preliminary Plat with the following changes:
a. Note added stating that the size and location of the pump station and easement will be determined at the final design phase and shown on the final plat;
b. Note added stating that an access easement will be provided on the final plat to allow the City Utilities Department unlimited access to the proposed pump station;
c. Note added stating that a Transfer of Ownership for the property where the proposed pump station will be located will be executed before the final plat is recorded;
d. Note added stating that funds will be placed in escrow after the approval of the final plat for the future decommissioning and modification of the temporary pump station, and that no building permits will be issued until the funds are in escrow.
e. Easements provided for access to waterlines, per Utilities Department’s approval.
f. Note added stating that access will not be permitted onto the future minor arterial road along the east property line until the intersection at the Louisiana/W 31st Street intersection is operating at a C level or better.
g. The existing and proposed sidewalks along W 31st Street and Ousdahl Street must be shown with dimensions, with a notation that the proposed sidewalk will be installed during construction of the development. It must be noted that sidewalks will be constructed to City Standards.
h. Note added stating that sidewalks will be provided along the extension of Ousdahl, W 33rd Street and the future arterial road along the east property line, when these roads are constructed.
i. Proposed detention pond must be shown on the plat, with a note that it is a private drainage easement which will be maintained by the property owners.
j. 80’ of right-of-way must be dedicated for the future extension of Ousdahl Road to the south property line.
k. 80’ of right-of-way must be dedicated for the future extension of W 33rd Street to the east property line.
l. Additional right-of-way for a roundabout must be dedicated at the corner of W 33rd Street and Ousdahl. (50’x50’ triangle of right-of-way on each corner.)
m. Southern Star’s easement must be shown on the plat, if it is located on the Exchange Property. If an encroachment agreement is necessary, the applicant must provide a copy to the planning office.
n. Site Summary table must be provided on the plat which includes the lot size, amount of right-of-way being dedicated and the net area in each lot.
o. Dimensions must be shown for the lots.
Motion carried 5-3, with Commissions Eichhorn, Harkins, and Harris voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in opposition.
PC Minutes 6/27/07
ITEM NO. 10: 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 10 deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 6/27/07
ITEM NO. 11: AMENDMENTS TO CITY/COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (JCR)
TA-05-08-07: Consider amendments to City/County Subdivision Regulations to address
concerns identified in the 3/1/07 work session with City & County staff. Initiated by Board of
County Commission on May 2, 2007.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Joe Rexwinkle presented item.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Harkins said there were an extraordinary number of corrections for an existing document. He asked about legal counsel looking at these documents and said this was an example of why it needed to be a policy to refer all draft codes to counsel and have them go through them before the Planning Commission was asked to adopt them. He was not opposed to making the corrections, but wanted to avoid this in the future if possible.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that after the regulations were written for the unincorporated area it was found that many people wanted to do other things with their land. Staff was not aware of all of these other things so the exemptions were written to address these. This set of regulations has had some substantial review by County attorney Evan Ice.
Commissioner Lawson stated that this document was an abnormal document that was not typical.
Commissioner Harris wanted to know if it could be reviewed again and brought back to Planning Commission for approval after that.
Ms. Stogsdill was fine with putting this on another agenda but she wanted to know what questions the Planning Commission had so that that Staff knew where there were inconsistencies.
Commissioner Harris had a question regarding D1(i).
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if secondary uses were allowed in the county.
Mr. Rexwinkle said that accessory dwellings were not allowed in the county.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that there were words in the document that were not needed and make it more difficult to read.
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired about editing the document outside of a public meeting.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that Planning Commissioner could defer it but it would not move on to City Commission & Board of County Commission until Planning Commission acts on it.
Commissioner Harkins stated that possibly a committee could be formed to work with Staff to bring it back to Planning Commission.
Commissioner Lawson wanted to see a written version of the issues before he could understand the depths of the concerns.
Ms. Stogsdill said it was her understanding that Linda Finger & Evan Ice drafted the document together.
Commissioner Jennings did not feel that a formed committee was necessary, just Staff who understood it could get together and talk.
Ms. Stogsdill said that Planning Commission members who had issues and/or concerns could meet with Linda Finger and Evan Ice. Ms. Stogsdill did not feel comfortable responding to some of the Planning Commissions questions so she would like a list of concerns to give Linda Finger and Evan Ice.
Commissioner Lawson asked what provoked these changes.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that the additional language does address issues that Staff did not have the answers for and that there should be consistent language.
Mr. Rexwinkle said that the purpose was also to define terms that were not defined, along with other minor wording changes.
Commissioner Harkins said there were a lot of technical changes in the document and he definitely felt they should discuss conservation easements since it was a major policy issue. He felt they should adopt the document in principle and let Staff rework it. He had confidence in Staffs ability to do this.
Motioned by Commissioner Harkins, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to approve TA-05-08-07.
Commissioner Harris agreed with Commissioner Harkins but would like Evan Ice and Linda Finger present to answer questions. She did not feel comfortable adopting the changes without their comments.
Commissioner Lawson asked if this could be a mid-month topic.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that the July mid-month agenda was full but it could potentially be on the August mid-month agenda. She pointed out that time did need to be reserved during mid-month for T2030.
Commissioner Eichhorn inquired about publishing a legal notice for the August mid-month meeting.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that a legal notice could be published for the August mid-month meeting.
Commissioner Lawson asked if failure to address this sooner would cause Staff problems in their day-to-day work.
Ms. Stogsdill said probably not, Staff had only received 7 submittals so far, but that the Planning Department has been telling the public that the document would be coming. The August mid-month meeting would at least be two weeks prior to the August Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Harkins asked Staff Attorney, John Miller, about conservation easement issues. He was concerned about this being challenged in court.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that significant changes in Section 20-806 were made but he assumed they did not make the same changes in the urban growth area.
Ms. Stogsdill replied that was correct.
Commissioner Finkeldei wanted to see the language of “encourage” instead of “require.”
Commissioner Harris stated that it was originally intended that cluster development only be used where there was sensitive land which would lead to increased density in the remainder of the area.
Commissioner Eichhorn was concerned about changing the wording to “encourage” instead of “shall.”
Commissioner Moore felt that would create inconsistencies in the document.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to defer TA-05-08-07 to the August 15th mid-month meeting.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmation.
PC Minutes 6/27/07
ITEM NO. 12: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-05-09-07: Consider amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct
inconsistencies since adopted. Specifically, this amendment is to add an exception to
Section 20-602 (e) (6) to permit signs in required yards and setbacks. Initiated by the
Planning Commission in December 2006.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Joe Rexwinkle presented the item.
Commissioner Harris inquired if TA-05-09-07 was the only item the Commission was considering this evening.
Mr. Rexwinkle replied, yes, and that he was aware of the concerns regarding the tables but that those were left in error.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Lawson, seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to approve and forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-05-09-07] to Article 6 of the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” to the City Commission.
Motion amended by Commissioner Harris to remove text on page 4 and 5 that refer to 601 a & b.
Motion carried unanimously 8-0 with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
PC Minutes 6/27/07
ITEM NO. 13: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-06-10-07: Consider initiation of text amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to
address inconsistencies since adopted.
Item 13 deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 6/27/07
ITEM NO. 14: CPA-2007-1 (DDW)
CPA-2007-1: Consider adopting Chapter 14 – Specific Plans of Horizon 2020 to incorporate existing and future specific plans as comprehensive plan policy.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Dan Warner presented the item and suggested inclusion of the East Lawrence Plan that was adopted in 2000.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked Staff if they suggested that Planning Commission add it in as an amendment
Commissioner Finkeldei asked about the 1st page of draft numbers 1-4 and wondered if it was supposed to be intentionally left vague.
Mr. Warner replied, yes.
Commissioner Harris asked what was not included.
Mr. Warner responded, the Northwest Area Plan.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that there were neighborhood plans done in the late 70’s and 80’s but the Northwest Area Plan was superseded by the 6th & Southwest Lawrence Trafficway Nodal plan.
Mr. Warner said that the plans were available for reference and are valid in some areas.
Commissioner Harkins appreciated the designated review dates.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to approve CPA-2007-01, the comprehensive plan amendment to Horizon 2020 by creating Chapter 14 (Specific Plans), for the City of Lawrence and unincorporated Douglas County with the inclusion of the East Lawrence Plan and recommends forwarding this comprehensive plan amendment to the Lawrence City Commission and the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried unanimously 8-0 with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to approve and sign Planning Commission Resolution 2007-03.
Motion
carried unanimously 8-0 with Student Commissioner
Robb also voting in the affirmative.
PC Minutes 6/27/07
ITEM NO. 15: CPA-2007-2 (DDW)
CPA-2007-2: Consider initiation of a future public hearing to amend Horizon 2020 to ensure proper comprehensive plan language is in place for a proposed Mixed Use District in the City of Lawrence Land Development Code.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Dan Warner presented the item.
Ms. Stogsdill advised the Planning Commission that this item will be on the July Planning Commission agenda for discussion.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Chaney to initiate CPA-2007-2 for future public hearing to amend Horizon 2020 to ensure proper comprehensive plan language is in place for a proposed Mixed Use District in the City of Lawrence Land Development Code.
Motion
carried unanimously 8-0 with Student
Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
PC Minutes 6/27/07
ITEM NO. 16: CPA-2007-3 (MJL)
CPA-2007-3: Consider initiation of a future public hearing to amend Horizon 2020, Chapter 14
Specific Plans, to add a reference to the Revised Southern Development Plan.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Michelle presented the item. She stated that the CPA was to follow the plan through the process.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to initiate CPA-2007-3 for future public hearing to amend Horizon 2020, Chapter 14 Specific Plans, to add a reference to the Revised Southern Development Plan.
Motion carried unanimously 8-0 with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
ADJOURN 9:15pm