PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 23 & 25, 2007
Meeting Minutes
_______________________________________________________________________
July 23, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Blaser, Chaney, Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, Hird, Jennings, Moore and Student Commissioner Robb
Staff present: Stogsdill, Gock, J. Miller, Patterson, Pool, Soules, Uddin and Brown
_______________________________________________________________________
MINUTES
Discussion regarding June 25 & 27, 2007 draft minutes -
Commissioner Finkeldei suggested a change on page 20.
Motioned by Commissioner Jennings, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to approve the minutes of the June 25 & 27, 2007 meeting with discussed revisions.
Motion carried, 7-0-1, with Commissioner Blaser abstaining. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmation.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner Jennings stated that CPC met on and finalized the draft for the Southern Development Plan.
Commissioner Finkeldei advised that at the July Mid-month meting they had an update from the ITS Consultants and the T2030 consultants. He also stated that TAC met and discussed amendments to the TIP.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that Rural Zoning Ordinances met and reviewed what they had previously done and are still working on the CUP chapter.
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 2, 3, 4A, 4B – 6th & Wakarusa
Item 5 – SUP for 637 Tennessee
Item 6 – Rezoning from RS10 & County A to RS5; .954 acres; 523-543 Rockledge
Misc.
· Memo from Staff to initiate text amendment to Sec 20-601(b)[1] of the Land Development Code to adjust the setback requirements for the IG District when abutting residential districts.
· Letter from Dave Corliss in response to Bill Mitchell’s July 13th letter.
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte
· No abstentions
· Item 5, SUP-04-05-07 was deferred per the applicants request
PC Minutes 7/23/07
RECEIVE PRESENTATION FROM KDOT AND CITY ENGINEER REGARDING W 6th STREET TRAFFIC MICRO-SIMULATION
STAFF PRESENTATION
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, introduced the item by saying that a year ago KDOT did a traffic simulation study of 6th Street and at that time different assumptions were made. Over the past year City Commission has approved improvements of the 6th Street corridor. They decided to revisit the study with KDOT due to misunderstandings about the level of service. He explained that the level of service is what traffic engineers grade A-F, which means how much of a delay each intersection has. He stated that the average signal time was 2 minutes but that traffic volumes impact that. He said that the traffic along 6th Street was going to increase as the area develops.
Shoeb Uddin, City Engineer, said there have been many studies for the 6th Street corridor. They are trying to see the impact of the traffic in the corridor. A traffic impact study was required by the city any time traffic may be impacted. The study looks at current traffic and the impact of proposed and long range projects. The model that KDOT uses looks at the corridor as a whole. A traffic study just looks at the immediate area of the project. They felt that combining all studies and coming up with a scenario was needed. The work was done by Andy Jenkins and his KDOT team. The Planning Department provided an approved plan of the corridor. In order to run the model the model has to be developed and the model has to be run to decide what scenarios are going to be analyzing.
Scenario 1 was existing plus committed development in the corridor.
Scenario 2 was to predict the future, a full build out scenario that includes more development. It includes every possible development that would use 6th Street.
Scenario 3 included an interchange build, that included what traffic impact would happen.
The results from analyzing the different scenarios produced different travel times for each intersection. Existing and committed travel times were approximately 5 minutes and for future scenarios it was 8-10 minutes. The intersection delay for the 1st scenario would range from 10-55 seconds. The intersection delay for future scenarios will range from 10-80 seconds. KDOT should make the final decision but Public Works recommendation would be to have an aggressive plan.
On page 4 of the memo that he passed out, the intersection of Folks and 6th Street had an over 80 second delay, so it was given a grade of F. He stated that in the coming weeks that intersection would be analyzed more closely since there may be a problem with the traffic volume. All of the studies are based on practical and realistic assumptions based on what is known. Cut-thru traffic is a concern by the public and the model does not take cut-thru traffic into account but he did not feel there would be a significant problem with cut-thru traffic.
Andy Jenkins, KDOT, showed moving scenarios on the overhead screen of peak time traffic along the 6th Street corridor.
Mr. Uddin stated that when they first ran the scenarios the East bound traffic was experiencing long delays due to not having a traffic signal at 6th Street and K-10, so they added a traffic signal there and did assumptions based on that signal being there.
Commissioner Moore inquired about the recommendation.
Mr. Uddin stated that the assumption was that if those things do not happen then a reduction in traffic and delay would not be seen.
Commissioner Harkins asked about the assumption of developing north of Folks Road.
Mr. Uddin said they assumed residential development all the way to Peterson Road.
Mr. Jenkins said that traffic volumes were based on the Bauer Farm traffic impact study.
Commissioner Harkins asked if it would have made a difference if Monterey Way had been included.
Mr. Uddin said the 3rd scenario had over an 80 second delay so it got a rating of F. The bad scenario is for the full build out and includes every development you can think of.
Mr. Jenkins stated that the intersection of Bob Billings Parkway and K-10 was not a committed project and was contingent upon funding.
Mr. Soules felt that the study would handle the problems of the 6th Street corridor.
PC Minutes 7/23/07
ITEM NO. 1: MPO CONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS FROM TAC (DCM)
Acting in its role as the Metropolitan Planning Office (MPO), consider recommendations from 07/10/07 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Anson Gock, Senior Transportation Planner, presented the item. He explained the 5 amendments to the TIP:
Douglas County is requesting the following amendments to the TIP:
Total Cost: $257,000 Local Share: $54,000
Total Cost: $575,000 Local Share: $125,000
Total Cost: $400,000 Local Share: $85,000
The City of Lawrence is requesting the following amendment to the TIP:
Total Cost: $500,000 Local Share: $250,000
The Lawrence Transit System is requesting the following amendment to the TIP:
Total Cost: $4,988,000 Local share: $848,000
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Harkins asked if the City had projections for ridership.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated that money has already been allocated by a grant from the Federal Government.
Mr. Gock that money is already earmarked to be used for buses.
Commissioner Harkins wanted to know if the money could be reassigned to fix something else.
Mr. Gock replied, no.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Moore, acting in its role as MPO, approved the requested 5 amendments to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and transmit the TIP Amendments to KDOT with a request for approval.
Unanimously approved 8-0, with Student Commissioner Robb in favor.
PC Minutes 7/23/07
ITEM NO. 2: PRD-2 TO OS; 1.623 ACRES; SE CORNER OF CONGRESSIONAL & OVERLAND. (LAP)
Z-09-25-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 1.623 acres, from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) to OS (Open Space). The property is located on the SE corner of Congressional and Overland. Submitted by BFA, Inc., for Village Meadow’s LLC, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION - Items 2 & 3 were heard together
Lisa Pool presented the item.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to approve the rezoning of approximately 1.623 acres from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District to OS (Open Space) District and forwarding a recommendation of approval to the City Commission, based on the findings of fact outlined in the staff report and subject to the following condition:
1. Filing of a replat at the Register of Deeds’ Office or filing of a new drainage easement and vacation of existing easements via separate instrument with the site plan application.
Unanimously approved 8-0, with Student Commissioner Robb in opposition.
PC Minutes 7/23/07
ITEM NO. 3: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 6TH & WAKARUSA; NW CORNER OF 6TH ST & WAKARUSA DR (LAP)
PDP-06-02-07: Preliminary Development Plan for 6th & Wakarusa, located at the NW corner of 6th Street & Wakarusa Drive, North side of Highway 40. Submitted by BFA, Inc, for 6Wak Land Investments, LLC, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION - Items 2 & 3 were heard together
Lisa Pool presented the item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Bill Newsome, 6Wak Land Investments, said that he and Doug Compton had owned this tract for quite a few years now. The item would require a rezoning and a development plan. He thought he could say with no reservations there probably had not been another tract of land in the history of Lawrence that had come under more scrutiny than this one. He said the plans for this tract have been analyzed fully by the City in 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006 and now in 2007. He said the plan carried a staff recommendation. He said there may be speakers tonight who would ask to delay this decision, but relative to the standards in place, this application received both a thorough and a satisfactory review by staff; otherwise it would not have carried a recommendation. He said in his opinion, it was ready to be moved to the City Commission for consideration in August. He said while Wal-Mart was a national name, the ownership and development of this site are local. The jobs, sales tax, property tax all stood ready to be put in place in the last five years and would provide local benefits.
Angie Stoner, Public Affairs Manager of Wal-Mart Corporation for the State of Kansas, said she was present to answer any additional questions that were specific to Wal-Mart. She said Wal-Mart had been a member of the Lawrence community since 1983 and were proud of some of the economic benefits that they provided to the community as far as job opportunities, the way they allowed families to save money, and some of the charitable contributions they delivered to the Lawrence community. She said Wal-Mart had a local presence in Lawrence and that was important to them. They currently employ over 19,000 associates in the State of Kansas, 400 of the associates being employed at the current Wal-Mart in Lawrence. They also worked with local suppliers in the State of Kansas. She said in 2007 Wal-Mart spent over $1.7 billion with 973 suppliers in the State of Kansas. She said through these partnerships, Wal-Mart supported over 35,000 jobs in the State of Kansas. She said it was important to recognize the partnerships they had throughout the entire state. She said they believed in giving back to the local community and over 90% of their charitable giving was done at the local level. Their store associates and store managers made those decisions. Each Wal-Mart Super Center on average gave $30,000 - $50,000 per year to their local community. Last year they raised and contributed over $4.4 million in the State of Kansas. She said being a part of the Lawrence community had been very important to them since 1983 and appreciated the Planning Commission taking the time to listen to the proposed sites at 6th and Wakarusa.
Todd Thompson, attorney, said this plan was different from the plan submitted last fall and the rezonings now tabled at City Commission were previously recommended for approval by the former Planning Commission; there had been a tie vote on the preliminary development plan. They took the comments made at that meeting to heart and made revisions to the plan which are reflected in the plan before the Planning Commission. He said he wanted to note that in the upper left hand corner where the detention basin is shown, there had previously been approved a 24 unit apartment complex. In terms of density, they were reducing the density of the development in this quadrant by 24 living units with the new proposal. In addition, the existing zoning for the site called for 154,000 square feet of commercial space and this proposal was for 128,000 square feet of commercial space. They reduced the existing approved square footage by roughly 24,000 square feet. The amount of green space that was required for this particular site was 28,938 square feet and this plan provided for almost 44,000 square feet. He said that this figure did not include the detention basin; in terms of green space in this quadrant, it was dramatically above what was required by code. He said the trees that have been committed to this project were much larger than the required. He showed a picture of a tree that was reserved for this project. In addition, the number of trees exceeded the requirements of the City. The entry drive had been moved to the south from the previously approved plan. He said the previously approved plan and other approved plans had the entry way come right in front of the building, which resulted in conflict between the pedestrians going in and out of the stores and the traffic. By moving the entry way south, they eliminated that conflict and allowed the traffic to flow into the site and disperse off of what was a frontage road into the various parking lots of the Wal-Mart store and the out lots. He said Ray Frankenberg had some elevations and perspectives to show the Planning Commission and would go into a little more detail about the plan. The condition that staff had mentioned in terms of having the utility hook up plans approved was all that they have not resolved with staff. He said staff had recommended approval of this plan and asked the Planning Commission to approve the rezoning to Open Space in the upper left hand corner, approve the rezoning for the PCD zonings on the rest of the quadrant, and approve this particular plan as recommended by Staff.
Ray Frankenberg, site engineer, said Mr. Thompson pretty much covered a lot of the changes but there were a few things he wanted to present to the Planning Commission. He said he was going to go through and show the various areas. There was an entrance from Wakarusa Drive that was a right in, right out only. There was a full entrance on Overland Drive. There was another full entrance on Congressional. He anticipated all of his service traffic to come in and out of the service area entrance and exit. He said they could go through the lots, but it would be a longer route. He said on the original approval of the 135,000 square foot box many years ago, the drive that went in front of the store accessed Congressional. They tried to avoid it and staff wanted them to avoid it. He thought it was a great plan because then they did not have people coming off of Congressional with their mind on driving on a public street as they went into pedestrian traffic. Every customer that he had going into the Wal-Mart store would be crossing it and thought it was a real safety aspect of this layout and were proud of it. All cars leaving would go to a “thru” drive on the shopping center as a whole. He showed where they could enter and exit, and showed where commercial buildings were. He said what would be built on opening day of Wal-Mart and possibly opening day for many more of them would be the drive thru and the parking lot to connect from Congressional to all the rest of the area they were looking at. He thought they had considered the vehicle traffic very well and blended it well with the pedestrian traffic. Every drive had a pedestrian walk way along it. Customers could get to the front of the store; walk through pedestrian walk ways to any of the other buildings on the site. He said there were drive thrus on the east side of one building and a drive thru on the west side of another building. He said they had the stacking lined out for each of the drive thrus, so that if it backed up it was impacting an internal drive isle. They were also away from any public street. It would be an internal traffic issue if it impacted any traffic. He said a couple of unique things they did at the site was to combine small landscape islands into three very large islands in the front of the site. Many of the islands had been scattered out in the parking lot. It made maintenance of the parking lot much easier, it made less of a burden on the customers and operators of the store, and it provided landscaping berms that softened the view from the street. They also concentrated the landscaping along the streets, along Congressional, 6th Street, and Wakarusa to soften the center. He said they were using many mature trees and those tree sites were included on the plan. Each tree had been identified and they had done this three times and each tree had to change each time because the ice storm last spring took a lot of them out. He said when they were using the large trees, the nurseries did not care to keep them around. One large tree of 10 inch diameter was shading an area that could have 10, 15 or maybe 20 small seedlings going. He said when they sold a lot of the inch to inch and a half caliper trees it took up a lot of area. Some of the trees died from the ice storm and some were cut down as they waited for this project. The ones on the list were available and held at this time. He said another thing he wanted to point out on the landscaping was the area around the store. He said the area around the service area was a retaining wall. The retaining wall could be seen from inside the service area, from outside the service area it was retaining the soil that was piled up against it at a three to one slope and would have the landscaping on it, native grasses, forbs and so forth in that area. This area would not require irrigation once it was established, but it would be irrigated to get it established. The goal of zeriscape type landscaping was to turn irrigation off after a few years and the native plants would then be established. They could go as native Kansas habitat. They would have the grasses and trees that were native to Kansas. He said at the bottom of the detention basin they would see wetlands. They had several eight and ten inch birches at the bottom and would have wetland grasses so they could stand to have their feet wet during the storms and should thrive very well. There were three detail sheets that covered three major areas of the site that covered the entire site.
He showed the preliminary development plan which had a lot of detail on it which staff used to review and approve to make sure they had all the facets they wanted. He said the sewer line that was missed was the sewer line that crossed Congressional and the final disposition of that sewer line would be worked out with staff in the public improvement plans, which were a condition of this approval. He said the reason it was not worked out in detail right now was there were three possible scenarios that would work. He said the next sheet of the preliminary development plan was more detailed about how much parking they had, how much green space they had, etc. The utility plan had more details on the sewer, the storm sewer, and how the detention was going to work. The plan also showed the drainage areas that would drain toward the site. He said there would be plantings in front of the store.
He said the conditions were that the sewer connections would come with the public improvement plans and there was an entrance radius issue on the service entrance drive that would be on the public improvement plans. There was also an agreement not to object to any development districts for signals and road improvements that would be part of the final submittal. The site detention approval would be approved by staff as long as it looked as it does now. The dedication of easements was for the lot that would become a detention area for Wal-Mart, the pad sites, and some of the surrounding properties.
PUBLIC HEARING
Kirk McClure, 707 Tennessee, said he was speaking to the issue of the market’s capacity to absorb this space. He said the Planning Commission’s role was to ensure a net beneficial effect of each and every development proposal. When they make findings of fact, they were saying that this proposal conformed to the plan but had a net beneficial effect. He said this project did not and what he was asking of the Planning Commission was to protect the community from the over building that was going on. He tried to summarize the degree to which this community had been overbuilding for a long time. He showed a visual of “comparing growth in supply of retail space with growth in demand for retail space”. He said the supply was growing at 3% per year and the demand is growing at less than 1%, which was a long term problem going on for 12 years. They were are adding 160,000 sq ft of retail space each year and the growth of retail spending suggested they could only support 50,000 sq ft per year. There are over 300,000 square feet of empty retail space in the City that was adding to the blighting influence of this community. They have a six year supply of excess space in this community. He said if they looked at the pipeline of projects that have already been approved, including the subject property and they had over 800,000 square feet of excess space. With over 300,000 square feet of space, six years of surplus space already in the stock, they have approved 16 years worth of space. Communities that do that to themselves end up like Topeka. The White Lakes Mall killed downtown Topeka and what killed the White Lakes Mall was Wanamaker Road. If they continued to make the market grow unchecked, they would end up with an enormous amount of blight. They could already see that in North Lawrence, over 40% of the retail space was vacant in North Lawrence. The only other places they would find that were places like ghost towns in Western Kansas and declining urban areas like Kansas City, Kansas. What the community was asking of the Planning Commission was to make the appropriate finding of fact that the community could not now absorb this space. They already had a surplus of space and given that inability to absorb that space, they needed to delay this particular development plan for an indefinite time because the community could not absorb it.
Commissioner Eichhorn inquired if one was to buy a building that was blighted for a reasonable cost, when would in fact be the best time to buy that building so it could be turned into something more pleasing.
Mr. McClure said there was never a good time to buy if there was no demand for the services he was trying to provide.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked what if someone brought in a service that did not exist.
Mr. McClure stated you could do that on Minnesota Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas for a nickel. If the market was blighted, they could not support space for which there was not latent demand existing in the community. The actual retail sales were telling how much they could support and they could not support the space right now.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked Mr. McClure if he thought there would not be new folks to come to town to shop at Wal-Mart.
Mr. McClure stated that was correct. People would not leave their towns to come to Lawrence to shop at Wal-Mart because they already had one. The unique aspect of Lawrence was that people come for Downtown Lawrence. They had a slightly declining number of retail vendors of the City and had declining numbers of retail employment. This will draw folks from other stores.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if he had an opinion of whether Wal-Mart was going to fail or draw people from other businesses.
Mr. McClure said it would definitely be the latter. Wal-Mart was in this for market share. They knew there was very low growth in retail spending and carefully made the calculation of how much market share they could capture. They specifically want to put in a Super Center. This community is already at capacity of grocery stores. There is a benefit to Wal-Mart, low prices.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if he would also agree that if there was no new retail spending, there was probably no increase in traffic for the City as a whole.
Mr. McClure replied, no. Retail did not generate traffic; people generate traffic.
Commissioner Finkeldei said there might be a redistribution of traffic within the City.
Mr. McClure said they would be pulling into Wal-Mart.
Commissioner Moore inquired what the definition of retail entails in Mr. McClure’s graph he used. What was included in that square footage?
Mr. McClure said the vast majority is made up of general merchandise, but includes banks, restaurants, etc. Any space in the designated retail district was in that total. The situation is worse if we take out the banks, restaurants, etc. If they looked at just general merchandise, the vacancy rate was higher and the capacity to absorb that space was worse.
Commissioner Hird asked if Mr. McClure had indicated a 16 year supply of retail space.
Mr. McClure said 16 years were on the books right now, and 6 years that was oversupplied present in the community. They had a 6 year over supply in the ground, and 16 year in the pipeline to be developed.
Commissioner Hird asked if it would be his suggestion to have moratorium on commercial developments for a period of time.
Mr. McClure said he has seen communities adopt moratorium and they do not work. It should be a case by case basis. The easiest example would be for the Prairie Park area. When a set of subdivisions come together, they have to have a community center like everyone else. They have to have a convenience store, a grocery store, etc. In fact, even in an overbuilt community, there are going to be numerous times when it would be advisable for the City to provide approvals. A moratorium did not provide for that. They needed to think these developments through on a case by case basis. This particular case was indefensible.
Commissioner Hird asked what Mr. McClure’s response would be to the fact that the plan complies with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. McClure said that the Planners in this community practice 1960’s style of planning. They fall into the trap of thinking that planning is to facilitate development. He had no doubt that this project met the criteria. Good planning should have been analyzing this information on growth of city versus need. Back in 1999, the then Planning Commission instructed staff to not do this kind of work and staff have been scared to pick it up since.
Bogdan Pathak, 2100 Heatherwood Dr. #C12, a student in community, pointed out what he’s seen in development since he moved here. He noticed the larger stores did not fulfill significantly large sections of the student’s needs. They could take care of little details, but they would be looking for additional things that would make their lives more interesting. They would always go back to downtown for that. Wal-Mart would not draw people to Lawrence or to other parts of the City. If the design included 7, 10, 15 different local businesses that could take up shop there, it would attract people from Lecompton and the outlying areas between Topeka and Lawrence to Lawrence. Right now, they had the incentive to head to Topeka as opposed to Lawrence. The time it would take was similar and the reason was because they had K-10. If they put a stop light there, the traffic was better to come to Lawrence. Building it with a bunch of smaller businesses there would make perfect sense for Lawrence as a niche community. Building it as a Wal-Mart really did not address the core needs of the economy to make the economy grow. It subdivided the economy as to where they got their consumer products and not where they get the products that drive growth.
Brianne Hanna, 1908 E 19th St., a student in community, said at least two of the Planning Commissioners ran on the subject of bringing jobs to Lawrence. Many of the people drive to other communities for jobs. They had to go many miles and spend a lot of money for gas to find a job that did not equate to the money they spent to buy consumer products. She asked why they were trying to put in a place for jobs, but that money those people end up earning went directly back into that store or to other consumer based products. She asked why they were not trying to commit this space to a business community that would help build an income for this town so people did not have to leave Lawrence to work all the time. People leave the community to work, but they lose a sense of community when people have to leave that community to do their daily lives. If people were going to be leaving town to go to work anyway, why not stay there to eat dinner and pick up a few things from the mall. A Wal-Mart would not have people stay in the community to spend their money. It may provide a few jobs for high school students, adults and college students, but that was not what this community needed to grow. It would not draw in people from other places to live here permanently. It would make this town still stay a college town instead of a town with a college in it.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated the Planning Commissioners were all appointed and did not run for office and were all students also. The current Wal-Mart employs around 400 people.
Ms. Hanna stated that if you put a business district there instead, it would employ more people and draw more outside people and keep students in Lawrence. Many students leave Lawrence because there is no chance to get a job in Lawrence because there is not a lot of industry or businesses other than retail.
Commissioner Eichhorn said he was trying to explain the background and was not trying to be combative.
Ms. Hanna felt that this space could be used in a much better way than more retail space that had already been shown not to be effective any way.
Richard Heckler, 1217 Prospect Ave, said Mr. Thompson presented an elegant show. He said all the green space was great, except for one thing. They have been advised that Lawrence was over saturated with retail. He said a good looking store, no matter what it was, and as big and powerful as Wal-Mart, was more than likely to have a negative effect on surrounding businesses. Wal-Mart could not succeed in Wal-Mart fashion unless it did so. He said it made him think of a term that came to him many times, usually surrounding Wal-Mart but mostly any big box store, and it was the term economic displacement. How long could Lawrence withstand economic displacement?
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if he had the same concern when Home Depot came in, that Westlake would go out of business and they would lose all their hardware shops.
Mr. Heckler said not necessarily because Payless was here before Home Depot came in.
David Swift, Grass Roots Action, said he thought it was clear that ultimately the decision was whether or not this was a good idea and whether or not it was responsible for the community to go forward with this plan. The design specifications, technical compliance, and legality were all important. He said the question was whether this would benefit Lawrence. He said it was not about the location or technicalities, but rather how the public itself felt about building the second Wal-Mart at 6th and Wakarusa. This had been on the agenda for Lawrence for a number of years. They have been discussing and debating the issue of Wal-Mart for a long time. The public had a lot of exposure and a lot of time to think through what matters and how they felt. They decided in Grass Roots Action to try and do a scientific test. They did a randomly generated list of voters and called people to find out how they felt. They talked to 205 people and asked if they had heard about the debate of the 6th and Wakarusa Wal-Mart. If they said they had heard about it, they asked if they were for or against it. 53.2% said they opposed the second Wal-Mart, 26.8% said they wanted a second Wal-Mart, and 20% had no opinion. They found three main reasons against building the second Wal-Mart. The most serious concern was acute traffic congestion. Many people were also concerned about the impact on other stores in Lawrence. He said that brought him to the third concern which was the issue of low wages. Wal-Mart, the world’s largest corporation, was famous for providing low wage jobs compared to most other retailers and famous for providing an insufficient base in terms of health benefits. They did not prompt the people with whom they were speaking. They rattled off a list of potential pros and cons without elaborating. People had heard these issues discussed and knew people who had worked at Wal-Mart. People knew a lot about this issue and were simply prompted by the phrase traffic congestion or enhanced tax revenues or bringing customers in from out of Lawrence. They found that the people they spoke to did not favor the second Wal-Mart. He said if they added together the 20% who had no opinion and the 26.8% who favored the second Wal-Mart, it did not reach 50%.
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired if the poll question was about whether people would shop at Wal-Mart or are opposed to it being built.
Mr. Swift said it was essentially the same question that the Planning Commission and City Commission were being asked; did the community favor building this proposed Wal-Mart at the proposed site.
Commissioner Blaser said he did not know if Mr. Swift had been present at the beginning of the meeting for the traffic presentation, but as he heard, the traffic was not going to be a problem. Commissioner Blaser asked Mr. Swift if he had any idea of what percent of the “no’s” were for traffic.
Mr. Swift said that a couple of them actually favored building the store at 6th of Wakarusa because they lived near the other Wal-Mart and would prefer to have less congestion where they lived and more congestion somewhere else. Mr. Swift said he lives near the proposed project and knows how high school students drive. They will be directly next to this site with high volumes of traffic. That was a concern of his. When he spoke to people he heard a lot of different concerns.
Alan Black, 2011 Jenny Wren Rd., said Mr. Smith made reference to Free State High School being very close to this site and said that the effect of the store on the school had not been discussed. He did not find anything in the staff report about it. He expected that a lot of the students would go to the Wal-Mart, which was good for it. He could imagine some students would skip classes to spend time at the Wal-Mart. He imagined some students would park in the Wal-Mart parking spaces. With those effects, there was probably going to be a lot of pedestrian traffic between the high school and Wal-Mart which could create a safety problem.
Commissioner Eichhorn pointed out that pedestrian traffic was usually preferred instead of cars.
Mr. Black stated he did not want pedestrians crossing major streets. He thought that a lot of teenagers would cross the street mid block instead of at the crosswalks.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that if high school students worked at Wal-Mart, wouldn’t it be the perfect job for them to walk from school to work as opposed to having them drive somewhere else to work for four or five hours of the day.
Mr. Black said, yes, that was probably true.
Bangere Pumaprajna 2605 Blue Stem Drive, said he lived 3 minutes from the current Wal-Mart and would live 3 minutes from new Wal-Mart if it was approved. He said it was great to see a democracy in action and was sure a lot of people respected it. He thanked them for a brilliant presentation and could see why Wal-Mart was doing so well. He asked about Wal-Mart’s employment and low prices. He asked what kind of employment it employed and what does low price mean. He read statistics. Over ½ of the Wal-Mart workers fell through the company safety net. Few of the employees were covered. According to Wal-Mart’s own web site, in January 2006 the number of associates covered by Wal-Mart health insurance increased to 46%, which was well below the national average of 63% in large firms, 200 employees or more. For instance, Costco has health insurance for 80% of its workers. The health care that was provided for the associates was neither affordable nor accessible. He said the moral question was if people said it gave employment, they should be asking what kind of employment it was giving and would they send their own children to work there for 20 years. Wal-Mart offers health care options to the employees and families that have a deductible of $1,000 for individuals and $3,000 for the families. Employees have to wait too long to qualify. The Wal-Mart average for full time workers to qualify for benefits was 6 months compared to the retail average of 2.7 months and the average waiting period for large firms of 2 months.
Student Commissioner Robb asked if the statistics Mr. Pumaprajna referred to were for full time employees or part time employees.
Mr. Pumaprajna said they were referring to associate employees. He did not feel that any person would want a loved one working in such conditions as Wal-Mart.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that the Planning Commission’s purview was not healthcare and it should not be in their discussion to ask the applicant.
Mr. Pumaprajna said that when a group was making a decision for a community, he would like to know what kind of stores are being let in. He felt it was a moral issue.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that without going into a debate, they were good questions but as a land use committee it was not in their purview to address the healthcare issue. Healthcare discussions would probably need to happen with Wal-Mart, not the Planning Commission.
Alan Cowles, said he lived out on the west side of town. He wanted to let the Planning Commission know the concerns on the west side of the city were just as intense as they were four years ago and the biggest concern was still traffic. He said no matter what the traffic predictions seemed to say, he would have them stand on Congressional Drive with no building on the north side of that intersection, on the northwest and northeast corners. Currently there is a lot of cut through traffic without anything even built yet on that corner. The cut through traffic was already there without the predictions. He said they needed to be very careful in their decisions because whatever they put on that corner will probably be there for 50 years or so. He hoped they would not want to create the kind of problems they have on 23rd Street.
Gina Spade, 1118 Rankin Drive, said she and her husband moved to Lawrence in September with their two year old son from Washington D.C. Her husband works in Overland Park at a law firm, she works from home. They could have lived closer to his job in Kansas City, but chose to live in Lawrence because Lawrence is not full of big box chain stores. The downtown is thriving and special. They are concerned that if Lawrence began to look like Overland Park, they would have to reconsider why they chose to live in Lawrence instead of Overland Park. She asked the Planning Commission to consider the overall effect of this development on the city. When residents in the surrounding area could drive less than 10 minutes to currently shop at a Wal-Mart, if they so chose, what was the development already adding to Lawrence that they did not already have. More importantly, they needed to consider what this development would take away.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if Ms. Spade felt that Wal-Mart directly competed with downtown.
Ms. Spade stated that she personally does not shop at Wal-Mart, so she was not really sure if people would choose to shop at Wal-Mart over some of the downtown businesses. Any time you start concentrating development on the edges of the City, it is going take away from the downtown because it is 2 minutes away instead of 10 minutes away.
Mike Treanor, said he represented the buyers of the property of Bauer Farm Development. He thought the Bauer Farm project is seen by most people as the kind of project that Lawrence would like to see. It is mixed use, has a strong residential base, and retail that had been identified over time as being appropriate for that location. Wal-Mart is controversial for its generation of traffic and for some of its employee practices. What interests people that are potentially going into the Bauer Farm Project is that Wal-Mart offers that other shopping experience, which is the comparison shopping as compared to the specialty shopping across the street. Together they worked well together. Bauer Farm would have restaurants and pedestrian shopping. Across the street will be perhaps the kind of every day items that people want to get from Wal-Mart. Wherever Wal-Mart is placed, people were going to shop there, but they would also go to the places that were fun to go to. It was fun to go downtown because it is the arts, entertainment and shopping area in Lawrence and has great history. 6th & Wakarusa is a small community center for that surrounding area. If they gave more opportunities in Lawrence for what they were doing at Bauer Farm in conjunction with the kind of project Wal-Mart was going to do, he thought it would attract people there and would generate more people and traffic, which was what they needed for their own vibrancy.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Mr. Treanor if, being somewhat of a competitor in the area of the new Wal-Mart store, he found it curious that Dillon’s, Westlake and other people were not at the meeting because they are the stores that would supposedly be hurt.
Mr. Treanor said that if Westlake or Dillon’s thought this would be devastating they would be here tonight to oppose it. He thought if you ask the other owners around the corner, they would see it as a positive development for all the people out there; the specialty retailers, restaurants, and the grocery store.
Commissioner Hird stated that Mr. Black talked about Free State High School and kids that might leave the school and migrate into the neighborhood, particular into Wal-Mart. He asked Mr. Treanor to comment about the issue of the kids and their driving, skipping classes and hanging out in the parking lot since he has a development also.
Mr. Treanor said he would welcome the kids if they want to come over for lunch. He has two children who attended Free State High and knows they would leave and drive across the street to go to Arby’s or wherever for lunch and then come back, or do it between the after school activities. He thought that same thing was going to happen with Bauer Farms and Wal-Mart. They will have kids going to their center and go to the burger place or a restaurant. He felt that was a positive thing. As far as kids coming in there during the day, it was certainly possible but high schools were built in urban areas all over the world and it was not going to be the cause for someone to leave school.
Graham Kreicker, 1124 Williamsburg Place, lives very close to the corner of 6th and Wakarusa, and said people from Westlake and Dillon’s were probably not here because they might have considered this a land use issue, not a competitive issue. He said if they could think of it as strictly a land use issue there would probably be no reason for them to be at the meeting. He was concerned that the plan proposed did not include anything at all about pedestrian use and pedestrian consideration should be given top priority. He recalled for the Planning Commission the fact that even before the Wal-Mart Super Center grocery store opened up on the south side of town, that Food 4 Less went out of business and the manager did not make any bones about the fact that it might not have been the best store in their chain, but they were not going to be able to cut the mustard once the Super Center grocery store opened up. He thought that was a precursor of coming attractions if this program went forward. He said he was present to listen to the predictions about traffic, and did not have to wait for ten or fifteen years because the traffic on 6th Street was already a problem.
Allison Ruepe, 312 Indiana, lives in the Pinckney Neighborhood, and said she chose that neighborhood coming from Kansas City because it had so much individual characteristics and she liked that about Lawrence. She thought they did a marvelous job restructuring Wal-Mart to look wonderful and integrated into the community. She thought for a land use they did a spectacular job. She said she still agreed with a few other people that in a sense it was a moral issue. Wal-Mart had already driven other companies out of business all over the planet. She said they already had one Wal-Mart and did not know if they needed two. They also had a Target and a lot of different kinds of stores that support that kind of business in town. There were a lot of buildings downtown that were begging for someone to lease them, and the prices were going higher and higher, driving people out of the downtown area. She agreed that bringing in a huge, new Wal-Mart was going to suck the businesses away. When Best Buy came in, it was impossible to buy a good camera anymore with detached lenses and all the kinds of things you could buy at a local camera store, instead of the three or eight styles Best Buy carriers. She said if she wanted to live in Johnson County, she would go back there. She came out of Johnson County because she was tired of the entire big box look and everything being so depersonalized. She thought Lawrence was afraid to say no to development. She had been in Johnson County for only six years and had lived in the country for 10 years before that, and did not know how many thousands of dollars Lawrence has spent trying to say no to Wal-Mart and thought that Lawrence had a lot of money issues and other things they should spend money on. She said she knew why they could not say no to Wal-Mart and win, because they have such a huge legal department that they always win. It made her sad for Lawrence because she felt like they were being bullied into taking another Wal-Mart when they already had one.
Commissioner Hird stated that he lives in the country and when he drives into town on 59 Highway he passes the current Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Best Buy, Sears, and J.C. Penney’s. He wondered why there was such anger toward Wal-Mart instead of the other “Big Box” stores.
Ms. Ruepe said that the reason was probably because they were worldwide and they have closed many small town businesses across the U.S. She did some research and was not very fond of Wal-Mart. She was generally against big box stores and thought that they had the ability to go into a small town, put in a Wal-Mart, and all the local businesses would close.
Commissioner Hird stated that there was not any moral outrage when J.C. Penney’s and Sears came in.
Z Hall, 3232 Cardinal Drive, said it was unfortunate that Wal-Mart was getting a bad rap, but a lot of media coverage probably lent to that. She said she wanted to know more about the increase in partnerships with local business, what percentage of increase is anticipated in that area, and the nature of those partnerships. She also wanted to know how much of an increase of charitable contributions will come from the new store. She said she wanted to know where they anticipated the human resources would come from. The teenagers in West Lawrence would not work at Wal-Mart for low wages and hard work because of the lifestyle they were used to. The resources would have to come from somewhere else, in Lawrence or Topeka.
Jolene Bechtel, 3804 Park Place, said as far as why there was not a fear over J.C. Penney’s, Sears and Target was the history of Wal-Mart and the sweat shops that have produced so much of their products and partly because of the insurance situation. She said she was a registered nurse and works at a hospital and knew the millions of dollars they did in charitable care. This was a City hospital, so the money that was being used to pay for the health care of people who could not afford it came out of the Lawrence community. She was also concerned about traffic issues.
Mr. Pathak said one of the things he wanted to address was the question of whether this was a land use issue and whether or not it was technically correct. He said he sat on the Finance Committee at the University of Kansas Student Senate for quite some time. They went through a series of meetings just like the Planning Commission where they have groups come to them and ask for funding. They not only look at them in terms of technical correctness, whether they have done all the proper procedures and have everything in place, but they also looked at them in terms if they had been responsible with the funds they had given them in the past. He asked if Wal-Mart had been responsible with the land they have given them in the past. They also looked at something called duplication of services; whether or not the group was literally duplicating services that could be found elsewhere. There was an argument to be made for three or four Kwik Shops around town. Those were often times owned by the same company but were franchised so that a local person got a share of the profits. In this situation, there would be two Wal-Marts owned by the same corporation, duplicating their services, and that was neither here nor there if the market could absorb it. He said if they were looking for reasons to approve this simply because it was technically correct, then they should. If they were looking to make a decision to a deliberative body, there may be something more to say to that.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Thompson said that some public comment had suggested that nobody wanted the second store but a lot of the same people saying that traffic would increase; the two were not consistent. The “poll” really has no validity by virtue of reading the question and looking at the answers. He said with regard to traffic and the concerns of high school students, the high school bought their property with the designation of this corner as being commercial. They knew when they bought the property that this was going to be a commercial corner. Two blocks from Lawrence High School is one of the busiest intersections, 23rd and Louisiana. There has not been a history of horrible accidents there. Kids do have accidents. The reality is they had a decade of experience with 23rd and Louisiana generating immense amounts of traffic without any catastrophic results, having a high school two blocks away about the same distance Free State is from the Wal-Mart site. With regard to duplication of services: the market should be allowed to determine that and people ought to be allowed to vote with their dollars and feet. He thought the people had voted at the polls and should be allowed to vote with their dollars. He said this site had a number of ways to accommodate pedestrians. There were seating areas, more sidewalks, and if they looked at the plans, there had been a great deal of accommodation of pedestrians worked into the plan, both initially and with staff encouragement. He reminded them that the PCD-2 zonings had already been recommended for approval by the previous Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is now considering the plan and the rezoning of the open space area. He said after considering the land use issues that were associated with the plan, which was what really was before the Planning Commission tonight, he asked the Planning Commission to approve the project.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Jennings said it was his understanding that this was a land use commission. He stated that most of what was heard tonight had nothing to do with land issue; it had to do with the occupant. He pointed out that the Planning Commission does not go through this much debate when, for example, a Ford dealership is built; we do not talk about what brand should go there, we talk about whether it is correct to have an automotive dealer on the corner.
Commissioner Eichhorn reiterated that it was a land use discussion.
Commissioner Jennings said that the Planning Commission asked a member of staff five years ago to look up the distance from the front door of Checkers Grocery to Lawrence High and the distance from the front door of the proposed Wal-Mart to Free State High. The distance between Checkers and Lawrence High is closer than the front door of Wal-Mart to Free State High School. Wal-Mart and Free State High would share an intersection, but he doubted that high school students would park their cars there. He did not see too many kids parking in The Malls parking lot to go to Lawrence High School. He felt there was a misconception that Free State High is the rich high school. He stated that his wife taught there for 10 years and that many of the students were from East Lawrence, North Lawrence, and the area by the hospital. Nobody is forcing people to shop or work at Wal-Mart. People are acting like it is going to be an indentured servitude of some sort if this building is built there, and if no one wants to go in the front door or the back door then it won’t stay in business. Surrounding businesses were not objecting and previous testimonies from owners on both sides of the intersection were campaigning for this. He stated that he is not pro-Wal-Mart but there are a lot of services you cannot buy in that part of town. If the project is denied there is not a guarantee that Wal-Mart won’t go on the corner. He liked this plan better than the previous plan. He thought that if they had seen the original plan approved for this four or five years ago, there was a good reality that building could show up on that corner and he did not think any one would like that. He felt this plan was much more attractive than the other one the Planning Commission previously approved. He felt that most of the public comment was an attack on the vendor and not related to the land use issue. He thought they needed to separate that in their thinking.
Commissioner Hird stated that he has only been on the Planning Commission for a month and he was learning in leaps and bounds things that were not taught in law school about democracy in action. He appreciated the candor and demeanor of the public who took the time to speak on this issue. He stated that if this was reduced to a land use issue, the plan was in compliance with the rules and regulations. The applicant has made a strong effort to make it much more palatable for the community, both in terms of aesthetics and the technical requirements such as traffic flow, pedestrian use and things like that. The main land use issue that the public discussed was traffic. The uniqueness of Lawrence is very important, but is subjective. It is very difficult within the confines of a Planning Commission to know how to approach that. He found Mr. McClure’s comments very enlightening; the market capacity to absorb the project and the concept of a net beneficial effect. Commissioner Hird went on to say that what it comes down to is whether this project is in compliance with what the City Commission has determined as the long range plan for that section of town. Most of the comments heard tonight were criticisms of Wal-Mart as a company. He agreed with Mr. Jennings that it is a land use issue. In terms of land use, it is in compliance with what had been laid out as the purpose of this area, which is a tremendously important consideration. He did take the public comments to heart, but the use of the site should be looked at, not what store goes in there. Businesses could change. The Planning Commission looks at the use.
Commissioner Finkeldei noted that what was on the agenda tonight was even one step removed because they do not even have the PCD-2 zonings of this property on the agenda, they have the preliminary development plan and no one seemed to oppose that. He has been on the Planning Commission for a year and the Wal-Mart plan came before the Planning Commission 7 months ago with a development plan and they spent a lot of time talking about placement of islands, pedestrian access, location of buildings, and traffic flow. Many members of the public, as well as the Planning Commissioners, were concerned about various items. He went on to say that this preliminary development plan addressed those issues they discussed. There was one comment tonight saying it did not address pedestrian issues, but he felt the plan went above and beyond in that regard. He was pleased that they had been able to address those issues. The second most talked about issue that they considered last time and were still talking about is traffic. There are still traffic concerns and he believed that traffic was always an issue, but they now have more information today than previously. He felt this preliminary development plan was a much better plan than they had before.
Commissioner Eichhorn was concerned about rezoning the land that was currently PRD-2 to Open Space and wondered if it was taken out of the plan. Currently it was part of the plan with it being zoned PRD-2. It seemed a bad idea to move it off this plan to its own separate plan. What was part of something that became a substantial change was now another entity. He had a hard time understanding it being a substantial change when it was being moved off into its own separate area.
Mr. Thompson stated that it was not being removed from the plan. That corner lot had never been part of the PCD plan throughout the history of it. What happened was last fall, based on comments from staff and some of the people who attended the Planning Commission, Wal-Mart acquired that piece of property to turn it into green space, reducing the density on the entire quadrant. It had never been part of the plan. Because we already have a pending zoning under the old code, and yet this piece of property was not acquired after July 1st, they had to proceed with an Open Space rezoning under the new Development Code. In no way had it been taken out, and based upon notes on the preliminary development plan, it was joined at the hip with this particular PCD plan. They had a very extraordinary circumstance with a massive change the Development Code as of July 1st. They were not being separated and had not been separated. They had taken steps to effectively join them at the hip.
Commissioner Harkins asked Ms. Stogsdill if there was an area plan for that part of the City.
Ms. Stogsdill replied, yes, there is the 6th and Wakarusa intersection plan that the Staff Report includes.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the Wal-Mart plan was completely consistent with the area plan.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that was the conclusion in the staff recommendation.
Student Commissioner Robb felt that a lot of other Planning Commission discussions were oriented greatly around what was better for Lawrence and better for the community itself. She felt it did become a land use issue in the event that what was said was true. If the commercial areas downtown do begin to dilapidate somewhat then there may be a greater land issue later down the road.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that what she is referring to is a bigger issue with the PCD-2 zonings that are tabled at City Commission.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to approve the revised Preliminary Development Plan for Wal-Mart and forwarding the application to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. Revision of the plan to include the following:
a. Inclusion of details regarding the site’s proposed sanitary sewer main connection to the existing sanitary sewer stub under Congressional Drive.
b. City Engineer approval of the curb cut radius for the northernmost curb cut along Congressional Drive.
c. Remove reference to the existing Block and Lot numbers and include only the proposed Block and Lot numbers on the relevant pages.
d. Note the existing zoning of PRD [Wakarusa Place] (formerly PRD-2) for Lot 2A, Block 2.
e. Show at least one 8-foot wide van accessible access aisle within each grouping of ADA spaces.
Unanimously approved 8-0, with Student Commissioner Robb in opposition.
PC Minutes 7/23/07
ITEM NO. 4A: PCD-2 TO PCD-2; 25.97 ACRES; NE CORNER OF 6TH ST & WAKARUSA DR (PGP)
Z-06-07-07: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 25.97 acres from conditionally approved PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District to revise use restrictions. The property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of W. 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Free State Holdings Inc, Free State Group LLC and Michael Treanor contract purchasers. The property owners are Carolena Ltd. and HenrysFlower LLC.
STAFF PRESENTATION – Items 4A & 4B were heard together
Paul Patterson presented Items 4A & 4B together.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, pointed out that they are not reviewing the Preliminary Development Plan right now, just the rezoning and land use alterations that are tied to the zoning. The applicant agreed with all but one of the five conditions of approval on the Staff Report. The applicant would like to add 10,000 more square feet of commercial retail within the Bauer Farm commercial district. The primary request regarding the planned commercial district is to add to the allowable use list, licensed premises. They would like for a liquor store to be allowed within the Bauer Farm project in order to compete with the other corners of the intersection. Another stipulation that he would like to be removed from the Staff Report is a prior requirement that on residential structures within the planned commercial development that the ground floor be retail or office space. This was due to the fact that there is a limit to square footage retail space on the property. He went on to say that if they cannot put more retail on the ground floor of the residential structures then according to the stipulation the space would have to be used as office space. His argument was that office space is a very soft market in Lawrence. He would like the square footage of the Bauer Farm project to be increased from 62,000 square feet to 72,000. He showed a 1998 page from Horizon 2020 which defined what type of commercial center would exist at 6th & Wakarusa Drive. The 1998 version of Horizon 2020 described a community commercial center as consisting between 10-30 acres and could consist between 100,000-450,000 square feet. The Bauer Farm project would be 26 acres and limited to 62,000 square feet. Mr. Herndon requested the square footage be increased to 72,000. The existing and approved projects combined for the corner of 6th & Wakarusa have an allowable total of 378,000 square feet, leaving a remainder of 72,000 square feet of undeveloped retail. Mr. Herndon talked about the concept of floor area ratio (FAR), and how much of the building can be utilized. He said that that this was important in calculating how much of the site can be used and how much building can be put on a site. He stated that Bauer Farm was going to supply the same infrastructure that all other three corners of the intersection provided with substantially less revenue generators. He argued that even by adding 10,000 more square footage to the Bauer Farm development, the project would still be in conformance with the area plan because it is in total less than the square footage allowed at the intersection.
Commissioner Moore asked when the NE corner of 6th & Wakarusa got locked into the square footage.
Mr. Patterson stated 2003.
Commissioner Moore wondered if the increase in square footage would be in violation of ordinance 7756.
Mr. Patterson stated that the ordinance dealt with the PCD-2 portion restrictions and that was being overridden by the rezoning of the property which was conditionally approved in January 2006. What the applicant is asking for now would replace that.
Commissioner Jennings inquired where the extra 10,000 square feet would be at on the plan.
Mr. Herndon showed on map where the retail would be. The drugstore would like to be moved to the corner section of the project. The 10,000 square feet was from converting a building that was strictly office and other buildings being enlarged. The new plan would eliminate 5,000 square feet of office and added 10,000 square feet of retail on the overall plan.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the community theatre was planned space or open space when figuring the FAR.
Mr. Herndon the FAR was strictly related to the retail space and excluded all non-retail space.
Ms. Stogsdill said that she thought Commissioner Eichhorn was trying to ask if they looked at the retail square footage over all the area that is zoned PCD.
Mr. Herndon replied, yes, it includes the land that the theatre will occupy.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked why it was not designated as CC400.
Mr. Patterson stated that the plan says that it is supposed to be a CC200 and the area is grossly overbuilt.
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired that the area plan calls it CC200 but allows 440,000 square feet of space.
Ms. Stogsdill said this was correct.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if Mr. Herndon’s point of saying that the intersection allowed for more square footage was correct.
Ms. Stogsdill said that if you add up the numbers of the intersection, yes. She was not part of the discussion though and believed that the distinction of calling it a CC200 instead of CC400 was done to reserve the CC400 locations to be regional shopping centers. They did not want to designate it as CC400 and lead someone to believe it will become larger.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the 1998 Horizon 2020 plan that Mr. Herndon referred to had been updated.
Ms. Stogsdill replied, yes in 2004.
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired about the history of going to private roads to public roads on the plan.
Mr. Patterson said a planned residential development can have either private or public roads. The applicant would like the internal roads to be dedicated to public.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked how the City felt about that.
Ms. Stogsdill said that the applicant initially proposed the plan with private roads. The City would take over the maintenance of the roads after construction if they were public roads. In the long run, having the roads be public might be better for the community as a whole. Some private roads cannot be maintained in the way they should be.
Commissioner Harkins noted that there was quite a bit of public opposition to additional retail space with the previous Item Wal-Mart and that nobody stayed in the audience to listen to the Bauer Farm project, which is proposed at the same intersection as Wal-Mart.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Michael Treanor, Treanor Architects, stated that they previously received hours of public comment on the Bauer Farm project. He said that they are going to have high powered small commercial spaces and that it will make it easier for them if they we have more square feet to work with. They need more flexibility to allow more options within the project.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the table was out of the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Patterson stated it was out of the area nodal plan for 6th Street & Wakarusa.
Commissioner Eichhorn questioned why there are two sets of plans saying two different things.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated the plans could be determined in conflict and depend on what happens on the other side of the intersection. He said the area plan states there should be 62,000 square feet on the corner and Staff supports that, but he was convinced that 72,000 square feet would be beneficial to the project.
Commissioner Eichhorn said he would be voting for Staff’s recommendation of 62,000 square feet because of the area plan.
Commissioner Harkins said he would vote in favor of the 72,000 square foot plan because he felt that Bauer Farm was an exciting real estate development. He said that standards were close to being adopted that would encourage this type of project and this type of project needs to succeed to encourage this type of project in the future.
Commissioner Hird said usually his inclination is to go with the Staff recommendation but he felt the square footage increase was a reasonable request and he supported that request.
Commissioner Moore agreed that Bauer Farm was an exciting project and he supported the increase in square footage as well.
Commissioner Jennings stated that this project could be a self contained area where the people could live and walk to the services they needed. He felt the more diversity the residents had would provide more options for them.
Commissioner Eichhorn felt the area plan and Staff recommendation should be followed.
Commissioner Jennings said that he was not sure they should make their decision contingent on the NW corner. He went on to say that taking 10,000 square feet off one side of the street and adding to the other may not be the best idea.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harkins to approve the rezoning of 25.97 acres from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development – restricted uses) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development – with modifications to restricted uses) District, with the following changes: allow multiple family residential use (without restricting the first floor to only office or commercial), allow Licensed Premises use and allow for Liquor, wine and beer sales, for consumption off the premises; based on the findings of fact found in the body of the Staff Report with the exception that condition 5 of the Staff Report be modified to state that there will be no more than 72,000 gross square feet. Also, adding an amendment to the recommendations and findings of fact in the Staff Report, page 10, that staff finding refer to two issues related to square footage. The first issue being in conformance with the comprehensive and area plans. The second issue having to do with the idea of less intensive commercial development at this intersection. The addition of 10,000 square feet of retail commercial space in the PCD-2 portion of the Planned Development with the understanding of 5,000 square feet being split between buildings with only one new additional spot, will not greatly increase the intensity of the commercial development. Although the adopted area plan does state in one section that this intersection be limited to 62,000 gross square feet, another portion of the area plan states that the total intersection could be anywhere between 440,000 – 420,000 square feet, therefore including the additional 10,000 square feet at this intersection would still be less than 420,000 square feet allowed for the area plan. Forwarding a recommendation for approval of these modifications to the City Commission, subject to the following suggested conditions:
Motion carried 7-1 with Commissioner Eichhorn in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in opposition.
PC Minutes 7/23/07
ITEM NO. 4B: PRD-2 TO PRD-3; 25.97 ACRES; NE CORNER OF 6TH ST & WAKARUSA DR (PGP)
Z-06-08-07: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 16.53 acres, from PRD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) to PRD-3 (Planned Commercial Development). The property is located at the southwest corner of Folks Road and Overland Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc. for Free State Holdings Inc, Free State Group LLC and Michael Treanor contract purchasers. The property owners are Carolena Ltd. and HenrysFlower LLC.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to approve the rezoning of 16.53 acres from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District to PRD-3 (Planned Residential Development) and forwarding to the City Commission with a recommendation of approval, based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
Unanimously approved 8-0, with Student Commissioner Robb in favor.
PC Minutes 7/23/07
Initiate a proposed text amendment to Section 20-601(b)[1] of the Land Development Code to adjust the setback requirements for the IG District when abutting residential districts.
Application of the Development Code has revealed a potential error regarding the required minimum setback for properties zoned IG when abutting residential districts. The current text states such minimum setbacks shall be 50 feet, whereas the IL and IBP districts are only required to provide a 20’ and 40’ setback respectively. Properties that were previously zoned M-2 automatically converted to the IG District. This change may have significantly impacted existing IG lots and developed properties since the M-2 District required only a 20’ minimum setback.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to initiate a proposed amendment to Section 20-601(b)[1] of the Land Development Code to adjust the setback requirements for the IG District when abutting residential districts.
Unanimously approved 8-0, with Student Commissioner Robb in favor.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Recess at 10:35 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. on July 25, 2007.
PC Minutes 7/25/07
_______________________________________________________________________
Reconvene July 25, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Blaser, Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, Jennings, Lawson, Moore and Student Commissioner Robb
Staff present: Stogsdill, J. Miller, M. Miller, Rexwinkle, Warner, and Brown
_______________________________________________________________________
BEGIN PUBLIC HEARING (JULY 25, 2007):
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Sheila Stogsdill stated that the property owners for Item 5 (SUP-04-05-07) requested a deferral due to their attorney being out of town.
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte
· Commissioner Jennings abstained from Item 6
ITEM NO. 5: SPECIAL USE PERMIT; 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 from the June 27,2007 meeting)
Item 5 was deferred.
PC Minutes 7/25/07
ITEM NO. 6: RS10 & COUNTY A TO RS5; .954 ACRES; 523-543 ROCKLEDGE (MKM)
Z-11-28-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately .954 acres, from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) to RS5 (Single-Dwelling Residential). The property is located at 523-543 Rockledge. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for LC Anuff, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mary Miller presented the item. Ms. Miller went over the following points.
· Property is currently platted with 3 lots. Rezoning to RS5 is being requested to allow the property to be replatted and developed with 5 lots.
· This Rezoning request was considered by the Planning Commission at their December 20th meeting. The rezoning was requested to allow the property to be replatted and developed with 6 lots and the Commission recommended denial of the rezoning request to RS5.
· Applicant requested the City Commission to refer the item back to the Planning Commission for consideration of a revised plan.
· The property was final platted as part of the Country Club Terrace Final Plat; recorded in September of 1935 and has not been developed.
· Two rezonings have been approved recently for the lots on the northeast end of this block (lots 18-21 of Country Club Terrace Subdivision). These rezonings were from RS10 (Single Dwelling Residential) to RMO (Multi-Dwelling Residential-Office) and RSO (Single-Dwelling Residential-Office) Districts.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, of Paul Werner Architects, stated that they have tried to reach a compromise since the last hearing and that single-family homes provide better transition. He stated that the proposed number of lots had been reduced to five and that the average lot size was 7,600 square feet. He discussed with staff the option of requesting a zoning of RS7 with a variance for lot width. The applicant agreed to larger side yard setbacks on perimeter. Mr. Werner went on to comment that the 3 curb cuts with shared drives would allow the residents to pull out onto Rockledge rather than backing out and would provide safer access to the street.
Jeff Arensberg, of LC Anuff, stated that they are sensitive about the neighbors concerns and want to insure that the project would enhance the neighborhood. He feels it is a well thought out, quality project and that the rezoning would benefit the neighborhood. He is renovating a house located right behind this property so the rezoning was more than just profit. He felt the current zoning was obsolete considering the changes over time that have been developed across the street. He stated the proposal would buffer the larger homes to the west from the commercial uses to the east and would help stabilize the neighborhood.
PUBLIC HEARING
John Immel, representing neighbors in the area, expressed opposition to the rezoning project. He said that he found covenants on file that say they cannot have lots less than 6,000 square feet. He stated that these lots had not been developed since 1935 by choice from the land owners.
Dan Simons, 444 Country Club Terrace, stated that he would like to see the historical character of the neighborhood kept by only building 3 houses on the lots. He went on to say that the average Rockledge lot width was 115 feet, and the average lot depth was 240 feet. He said that it was a bad decision in 2003 when RO zoning was first granted.
Nathan Kolarik, 535 Rockledge, was opposed to the project because he felt it was too high of density and was concerned about traffic increasing. He did not feel that limiting the amount of curb cuts would do anything for the density. He thought that some of the units would become rental units. He stated that the property had not been developed since 1935 because the previous owner did not want to develop it. He also felt that this project could have a negative impact on the neighboring property value. He did not feel that the design of the housing was compatible with the surrounding area and thought that this rezoning would set a terrible precedence.
Dick George, 521 Rockledge, stated he has lived in the neighborhood for 50 years and enjoys the privacy of the large lots. He stated that the neighborhood was established in 1935 with 11 houses on 20 lots which allowed for privacy. He felt that the project would jeopardize his privacy. He stated that in 1968 he split his lot but had to maintain a 75 foot frontage on his lot because all other lots in the subdivision were that way. He was opposed to the rezoning and thought there should be no more than 3 houses on the proposed lots.
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired if after the lot split, were the lots at least 6,000 square feet.
Mr. George replied, yes, they were over 10,000 square feet.
David Carrius, felt that the applicant held off on the project for so long waiting for the new Planning Commissioners to be appointed. He felt the proposed project was inconsistent with the area and said it was not infill, but rather overfill.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Werner, realized it was an emotional issue, and was sincere about listening to concerns. He stated that infill development is difficult. He also stated that new sewer service was being added to Rockledge that other neighbors would benefit from. He went on to say that they are not here to damage the neighbors’ homes and that these new homes will not be rental properties. He said that Dick George’s comments prove the point of it being a great location for single family homes.
Mr. Arensberg, did not want to be penalized for RO zoning that happened down the street. He said that Mr. George’s comments were true and that people who have lived next to an empty lot for 50 years would have a hard time accepting the new development but he pointed out that they would be building nice homes with amenities such as sod and a sprinkler system.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked Mr. Werner to comment on the 6,000 square foot covenant that was mentioned earlier in public comment.
Mr. Werner said that all lots would be built to that size and the plat is still to come.
Commissioner Harkins inquired about the history of the RO zoning that was mentioned earlier.
Mr. Werner stated he did rezone the lot down the street to RO for an office but he did not recall anyone showing up to protest it. He said that Planning Commission recommended the adjacent lots be zoned to eliminate spot zoning.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the covenants affected the office lots. He stated that the turnpike did not exist in the 1930’s, and wondered when the character of Rockledge changed from rural.
Mr. Werner stated that the neighborhood character might have changed when the commercial zoning started across the street.
Mr. George said that when he first moved to Rockledge in the 50’s the road was gravel. He said that 6th Street and then the Turnpike were built. He said that the City wanted to connect the sewer from the Turnpike to 6th Street. There was no access from the Turnpike to US 40 W so Rockledge was used as an access road to get trucks up the hill. Mr. George also said that he does not mind having a view from his house of the backside of the hotels because there are no balconies and that the motels do not create any unwanted noise.
Commissioner Moore asked what kind of classification Rockledge would be.
Mr. Rexwinkle stated that Rockledge would be a major collector.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Student Commissioner Robb thought that the previous minutes from this item indicated consensus for 4 lots.
Commissioner Harkins stated that the interpretation of the minutes was incorrect. There was discussion of going from 6 to 4 lots but that discussion was stopped when it was determined that Planning Commission should not change the request.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that he voted against the last proposal when it was 6 lots. He said that every time there is an infill development they have changed a vacant lot into something else and there are neighbors that are not happy. He went on to say that he built his own house next to a field that is now being developed. He did not think that neighbors are ever excited about the neighborhood changing. He understood the neighbors wanting the land to remain as 3 lots but he did not feel that they would be marketable.
Commissioner Eichhorn had a hard time considering this infill when they are 3 platted lots. He felt that the zoning was being changed because the applicant wanted to do something different than allowed. He would support denial of the rezoning.
Commissioner Harkins said that in 1935 that this was an area of Lawrence remote and nobody anticipated the type of development that would occur. It was created in a time period that does not exist anymore. The neighborhood was changed when a major thoroughfare was built through it. He was comfortable with approving the rezoning because he felt that infill was an important opportunity to develop valuable piece of property.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated there were houses on Ohio that were going through something similar right now. He said that areas do change and can keep the original character of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Moore said that topography makes it difficult to conceptualize these lots on this property. He had a hard time visualizing those lots on that land and said the lot widths would have been more helpful. He inquired about the landscaping condition on the Staff Report.
Ms. Miller said that the landscaping conditions were to maintain streetscape.
Commissioner Lawson said that there seem to be more applications involving sprawl on the outside of town and they need to find ways to use the space inside the town. He supported the rezoning request and followed in the same thought process as Commissioner Harkins.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harkins, seconded by Commissioner Blaser, to approve the rezoning of approximately .954 acres from RS10 (Single-dwelling Residential) District to RS5 (Single-dwelling Residential) District and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Staff recommends conditioned zoning with the following conditions:
a. Development restricted to 5 lots.
b. Additional setbacks required: 25’ front yard setback and 10’ peripheral side yard setback (southern side of lot 1 and northern side of lot 5).
c. Building envelopes must be shown on the plat.
d. Development restricted to 3 curb cuts onto Rockledge Road.
e. 15’ wide street planting yard be provided along Rockledge Road with a planting rate of 3 ornamental or understory trees and 8 shrubs per 100 linear feet. Native grasses, forbs, bushes, and trees should be utilized to minimize maintenance. 1/3 of the plantings shall be evergreen species.
2. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried, 4-2-1, with Commissioner Jennings abstaining. Commissioners Harkins, Blaser, Lawson and Moore voted in favor. Commissioners Finkeldei and Eichhorn voted in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb voted in opposition.
PC Minutes 7/25/07
ITEM NO. 7: CO TO RMO; .79 ACRES; 1800 HASKELL AVE (JCR)
Z-06-12-07: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately .79 acres, from CO (Office Commercial) to RMO (Multi-Dwelling Residential-Office). The property is located at 1800 Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Ajay Suvarna, for the Islamic Center of Lawrence, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joe Rexwinkle presented the item. Staff recommended approval of rezoning approximately .79 acres from CO (Office Commercial) District to RMO (Multi-Dwelling Residential / Office) District and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Ajay Suvarna, operates a gas station across the street from 1800 Haskell Ave and would like to build a few apartment units for himself and the manager to live in. The land has been vacant for 15 years and he would like to put it to use. He did not intend to build a large multi-plex, just small units that will blend in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if the current CO zoning would allow retail or restaurants.
Mr. Rexwinkle said that it would allow some retail and restaurants but that CO zoning does not permit residential units.
Commissioner Blaser stated that it could have up to 11 dwelling units, and wanted to know how that related to office units.
Mr. Rexwinkle said it would depend on the amount of square footage. The district permits 22 units per acre.
Commissioner Moore asked if all parking for this district would be required on site.
Mr. Rexwinkle said he believed they could do an offsite parking agreement but it would have to be within 600 feet of the site and he was not sure where they would find that.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that a parking agreement had to be on property with the same zoning or more intense zoning.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if Staff was concerned about egress issues.
Mr. Rexwinkle said that egress issues would be dealt with at the Site Plan stage.
Ms. Stogsdill said that the size of the property limits access options. Over the years tentative proposals for this site have been looked at and it will always be a right turn in and right turn out because left turns will rarely be able to be made at the intersection.
Commissioner Finkeldei said the rezoning would allow 11 units and wanted to know if Staff supported that.
Ms. Stogsdill said that potentially more than 2 units would be possible but that parking would limit ultimate density. Garages with units above could be possible but that with the access issues, the corner setbacks, and parking it would be a challenge to have substantial development on that corner.
PUBLIC HEARING
James Grauerholz, lives in Brook Creek and worked on the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan. He sympathized with the applicant and owner but agree with Ms. Stogsdill that it was a difficult property to develop. He did not oppose the project but was concerned. He did not want rental units at the corner. He would like the owner be able to develop it and would like the applicant to come up with another design.
Michael Almon, resident of Burroughs Creek, was opposed to the rezoning of RMO due to density. He suggested rezoning the property to RSO. He stated the Staff Report mischaracterized Horizon 2020. He could support the zoning remaining CO. The Burroughs Creek Plan calls for lowering the density. The neighborhood requested a traffic circle at 15th and Haskell and would like one at 19th and Haskell, which would require dedication of R-O-W at the corner, thus making the site even smaller.
Owner to the West (did not state his name or sign the sign-in sheet) stated that he has seen many people try to do something with this property and he does not think it will work.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Suvarna, agreed with the neighbors concerns and a Site Plan will need to be developed. He wants to maintain a good relationship with the neighbors because they are his customers at the gas station.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Harkins inquired about the possibility of deferring the request until submission of a Site Plan.
Ms. Stogsdill said that would not be standard operating procedure but that they could make a recommendation of action be forwarded and not be placed on the City Commission agenda until a Site Plan has been submitted.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the applicant could withdraw the request and work with Staff on a Site Plan.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that the applicant could ask for a deferral, up to 6 months, for Staff to explore Site Plan options.
Mr. Suvarna said it would be acceptable for him to defer the item so that he could work on a Site Plan so that some consensus can be achieved.
Commissioner Finkeldei said it would be helpful to see a Site Plan since it is a unique location and he has a hard time picturing what would work at that location.
DEFERRED BY APPLICANT, FOR NO LONGER THAN 6 MONTHS.
PC Minutes 7/25/07
ITEM NO. 8: CPA-2007-2 (DDW)
CPA-2007-2: Discuss and provide feedback on proposed amendment to 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. The comprehensive plan amendment (CPA-2007-02) is for the consideration of amending 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. The Planning Commission initiated amendments to the Land Development Code to create a mixed use district on April 23, 2007 and initiated the amendments to Horizon 2020 in support of the mixed use district on June 27, 2007.
Planning Commission heard items 8 & 9 together (no action taken, just allowed for Planning Commission to provide recommendations)
PC Minutes 7/25/07
ITEM NO. 9: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-04-05-07: Discuss and provide feedback on proposed of amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to create a Mixed Use zoning district and associated development standards. Initiated by Planning Commission on April 23, 2007.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Joe Rexwinkle presented the item. On April 23, 2007 the Planning Commission voted to initiate text amendments to the Development Code to permit the creation of a Mixed Use Zoning District. Since this time a Staff committee has been formed which has begun to draft development regulations for such a district. The committee has provided draft language for the following identified amendments:
· Article 2: Base Districts
Amendments to this article will create base district language for the MU District. Draft language for this article is attached.
· Article 4: Use Tables
Amendments to this article will include addition of the MU District to the Nonresidential District Use Table and listing of uses permitted. Staff is still working on a draft version of this document.
· Article 6: Density & Dimensional Standards
Amendments to this article will add a density and dimensional standards table for the MU District. Draft standards have been attached.
· Article 11: General Development Standards
Amendments to this article will add development, form and design standards for mixed use developments. As the draft proposes, these standards will contain parking regulations for the MU District, rather than placing parking regulations in Article 9. Draft language is attached.
· Article 17: Terminology
Amendments to this article will define terms used throughout the MU District language.
Planning Commission heard items 8 & 9 together (no action taken, just allowed for Planning Commission to provide recommendations)
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Eichhorn inquired if this would allow someone to develop something without using the Smart Code.
Mr. Rexwinkle said it would allow mixed use development on a smaller scale than the Smart Code may permit.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if this would apply to areas smaller than what the Smart Code would cover.
Mr. Rexwinkle stated that was correct.
Mr. Warner stated the Smart Code was more for developing neighborhoods. This text amendment would be available for development up to 40 acres.
Commissioner Moore said he would support the text amendment.
Commissioner Harkins said he was troubled by the concept of 40 acres. A developer could cut their project to 39 acres to try to get around the Smart Code. He felt that 40 acres was too flexible.
Commissioner Lawson said that he had never heard of a shared parking agreement, which was mentioned in an earlier conversation. He inquired about shared parking.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that Krause Dining would be an example of shared parking.
Commissioner Harkins asked Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, if he had looked at the item. Commissioner Harkins wanted to know Mr. Herndon’s opinion of a client going to him for a mixed use plan with 20 acres. Mr. Harkins wanted to know if Mr. Herndon would recommend this text amendment or the Smart Code.
Mr. Tim Herndon said that he had not looked at the information for this topic but he thinks there are people in the community that would like to see the Smart Code as a toolbox. He said that if a developer came to him, the thing about the Smart Code that was better was it was a concise complete package of ideas that creates a coordinated variety of development.
Ms. Stogsdill said that this topic was brought forth because there are people who want to do things that the Development Code does not cover and that it will hopefully serve a different need than the Smart Code.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that it would give people the flexibility to use mixed use.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked about Mayor Sue Hack thoughts on the subject.
Mr. Warner said he did not believe Mayor Hack was aware of it but thought she would probably be in support of it since it fits in with the Place Maker and community design talks.
PC Minutes 7/25/07
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 was deferred.
PC Minutes 7/25/07
ITEM NO. 11: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 20-403 (JCR)
TA-06-11-07: Consider amendment request from Landplan Engineering to amend Section 20-403, the Nonresidential District Use Tables to permit “Quality Restaurants” in the IL District. Initiated by City Commission on June 19, 2007.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Joseph Rexwinkle presented the item.
The applicant submitted a request for a text amendment to the Land Development Code. If approved, this amendment would permit Quality Restaurants in the IL District. In discussing the applicant’s proposal, Staff determined it necessary to permit Accessory Bars in the IL District as well.
By definition, Accessory Bars must be accessory to Quality Restaurants. Many uses defined as Quality Restaurants include Accessory Bars. For consistency, Staff suggests that Accessory Bars be permitted as an accessory use in the IL District if Quality Restaurants are permitted. Additionally, Staff recommended that Accessory Bars be permitted in the CO District as well. This district permits Quality Restaurants as well, thus it appears that this use was inadvertently left out of the use table upon publication.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to approve the proposed revisions [TA-06-11-07] to Section 20-403 of the “Land Development Code, June 26, 2007 Edition” to the City Commission.
Unanimously approved 7-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmation.
PC Minutes 7/25/07
ITEM NO. 12: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 20-218 & 20-1307, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-06-12-07: Consider amendments to Section 20-218 & 20-1307 of the Development Code to modify the Access Standards of the GPI District. Initiated by City Commission on June 12, 2007.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Joseph Rexwinkle presented the item.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Blaser, to approve the proposed revisions [TA-06-12-07] to Sections 20-218(e) and 20-1307(e)(2)(vi) and (vii) of the “Land Development Code, June 26, 2007 Edition” to the City Commission.
Unanimously approved, 7-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmation.
PC Minutes 7/25/07
ITEM NO. 13: AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 8, CITY/COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (JCR)
TA-06-13-07: Consider amendments to Article 8 (Joint City/County Subdivision Regulations) of the Development Code to modify requirements for topographical surveys. Initiated by Planning Commission on June 25, 2007.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Joseph Rexwinkle presented the item.
The amendment as proposed would permit an applicant for Site Plan or Subdivision to use the City’s aerial topography data to fulfill the requirement for showing topography on the site which is subject of the application as opposed to conducting an actual field survey of the site.
This information is a part of the City’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database. According to the City’s GIS Coordinator, the data has been updated approximately every three years beginning in 1995. The data currently used was obtained in 2006. This data is considerably more detailed than previous data and is sufficient for the purposes of depicting topography on a given site if the site has not been developed or otherwise disturbed since the date the City obtained the data. Due to this limitation, Staff suggests additional language be added to the amendment which clarifies that if a site has been developed or otherwise disturbed since the date the City obtained the aerial topography data, a field survey is required.
Mr. Rexwinkle stated that the words “and proposed” would be struck from the sections 20-812(a)(viii) and 20-1305(f)(vii).
APPLICANT PRESENATION
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, was present for questioning, if needed.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to approve and forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-06-13-07] to Section 20-812(a)(viii) of the “Land Development Code, June 26, 2007 Edition” to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners and Section 20-1305(f)(vii) of the “Land Development Code, June 26, 2007 Edition” to the City Commission.
Unanimously approved, 7-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmation.
PC Minutes 7/25/07
ITEM NO. 14: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-07-14-07: Consider initiation of text amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to address inconsistencies since adopted.
Item 14 was
deferred.
MISCELLANEOUS NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
Ms. Stogsdill reminded the Planning Commissioners about the August mid-month meeting on August 15th.
She also stated that the new Planning and Development Services Director would start on July 30th.
ADJOURN 9:05pm