PC Minutes 5/23/07 

ITEM NO. 8B:   A & V-C TO GPI; 536.88 ACRES; N 1175 RD & E 1600 RD (MKM)

 

Z-04-04-07: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 536.88 acres, from A (Agriculture) and V-C (Valley Channel) to GPI (General Public and Institutional). The property is located at N 1175 Road & E 1600 Road. Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers, for the City of Lawrence, property owner of record.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request for 536.88 acres from V-C (Valley Channel) and County A (Agricultural) Districts to GPI (General Public and Institutional) District and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following condition:

 

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

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mr. Price Banks appeared representing Dennis and Kayla Patterson, and stated they were direct neighbors of the site which had been called a water reclamation facility, but was still a sewage treatment plant.  He said it would affect property values and would not be a desirable neighbor.  Mr. Banks stated the specific issue was that this will have a serious impact on the quality of life and property values.  He said it would be a huge industrial facility and more than just a water reclamation plant.  Mr. Banks said the Patterson’s had invested a lot of money and sweat equity into their property and Ms. Patterson operates a home based business which is important.  The noise and the lights would impact the neighbors and the quality of life.  Mr. Banks stated the Patterson’s home lies outside the FEMA flood plain and the plant construction would affect that flood plain, that studies had been preformed in North Lawrence prior to the 1993 flood and there was flooding there that no one had anticipated.  Mr. Banks said the Patterson’s also have a well which would be next to the sewage treatment plant and that E 1600 Road currently has very little traffic now, but the traffic would be huge compared to what it was now, utility trucks, sludge hauling trucks, and employees.  Mr. Banks said he believed this was a bad idea and the Patterson’s urge the Planning Commission to deny the zoning, the Special Use Permit, and to recommend to City Commission they deny it also.

 

Commissioner Burress asked how far the Patterson’s home was from the site.

 

Mr. Patterson said it was the first home south of the site.

 

Commissioner Burress asked what the exact distance was.

 

Mr. Patterson stated his home was 1/4 mile or less from the site.

 

Commissioner Burress asked Mr. Patterson if he was concerned about the wells on his property and if there was an engineering study.

 

Mr. Patterson said no.

 

Mr. Banks stated the Patterson’s do not have the funds for an engineering study to be performed.

 

Commissioner Harkins requested Staff to show the slides of the site plan to show the location from the home to the site.

 

Ms. Miller presented the slides.

 

Commissioner Harkins requested the applicant to point to his home on the slide.

Mr. Patterson indicated his home as the first home highlighted on the map and stated the road to the north was closed by the township five or six years ago.

 

Commissioner Eichhorn asked Mr. Patterson how many acres of land he owned.

 

Mr. Patterson stated he owns two acres, the home was built in the late 1800’s, and he and his family had been restoring the home to the original condition for the past ten to fifteen years.

 

Commissioner Lawson asked Mr. Patterson his address.

 

Mr. Patterson answered 1118 E 1600 Road.  He said they could mitigate all the problems, like water, and flood plain, the property had been surveyed prior to this because the FEMA maps had the property in a flood plain at one time. Mr. Patterson said the property is four feet above the flood plain now.  With an impact in the area it could back water up.  He said that when his family first moved to the area it was flooded with water.  The negative impact on the property was his biggest concern.  Mr. Patterson said it had been a nice area but now the openness would be removed, lighting would be an issue, plus the noise and smell would be bad because it was a low lying area and the air does not move well. 

 

Commissioner Lawson asked Mr. Patterson if he had the appraisal conducted.

 

Mr. Patterson stated the City provided an appraisal one year ago and determined the value at $280,000.00 or $290,000.00.

 

Commissioner Lawson asked Mr. Patterson if he knows the exact amount of the appraisal.

 

Mr. Banks stated the appraisal conducted by the City was $290,000.00 and that the home was built in 1849.

 

Commissioner Eichhorn asked Staff if there was A-1 zoned property close.

 

Commissioner Burress asked if it would be reasonable to think there would be factory pollution 1/4 mile away.

 

Ms. Stogsdill stated Black and Veatch should comment.

 

Commissioner Lawson asked Mr. Patterson if he had stated he owns two acres.

 

Ms. Stogsdill said the property was nonconforming; it had been divided off many years ago.  She said today it should be five acres, because the water source is a well, but it was a preexisting condition.

 

Commissioner Lawson asked if the property would be merchantable.

 

Ms. Stogsdill said yes.

Commissioner Harkins asked if the property had access to rural water.

 

Mr. Patterson stated the rural water line is across the road west of the property.

 

Mr. Scott Schultz, manager of Rural Water District #4, said the Patterson’s property was not in the water district, but the supply line is near. He said it was annexed by an island annexation and they would have to put the property into the district, with a meter costing $7,700.00.

 

Mr. Orth said there was a graphic that would represent the distance which was 1000 feet past a residential property; the Patterson’s property is 2500 feet away.  Mr. Orth said there was another property that was closer and it was the one the consultants had focused on.  He said one of the issues brought up was traffic; and he was not prepared to address a resolution for that.  Mr. Orth stated biosolids would potentially be applied to the land and the lighting would be directed away from the Patterson’s home.  Mr. Orth said the basins were very tight and he would not be worried about leakage.

 

Mr. Philip Ciesielski, Utility Engineer for the City stated the property was right at 3000 feet from the intersection to the property line and from the north property line to the intersection of E 1600 and N 1175 Road was right at 3000 feet.

 

Commissioner Burress asked how many alternative sites were looked at.

 

Mr. Orth stated Black and Veatch looked at 7 alternative sites but this was the most isolated and friendly site.  He said the second alternative was the intersection of Highways 59 and 458 but there was a rural subdivision area just south and gateway issues.  Mr. Orth said there had been over 12 public meetings and 25 stakeholder discussions. 

 

Commissioner Burress asked the applicant if they would be opposed to a condition such as dumping sludge on the site.

 

Mr. Dave Wagner, Director of Utilities said he would oppose the condition, the 8th Street plant has had sludge applied in the past and that property was occasionally used.

 

Commissioner Burress asked if there was danger pertaining to sludge application.

 

Mr. Wagner stated the application of biosolids was highly regulated; the material has benefits like 5% total nitrogen.  He said the City performs a pretreatment program which takes out heavy metals and the soil is tested for existing nutrients. 

 

Commissioner Burress asked Mr. Wagner for the percentage of plant operations that had failed.

 

Mr. Wagner said he does not have figures.

 

Commissioner Harkins asked if the City had purchased the land. 

 

Mr. Wagner said yes, 530 acres.

 

Commissioner Burress asked Staff if there was recourse for the neighbors if the H & H study was wrong. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill said the Engineers and Attorneys should answer the question.

 

Mr. John Miller, City Staff Attorney said considering the hypothetical nature of the question, it could be difficult to asses what the risk factor would be.  He said he does not know what action the neighbors could bring against the City.

 

Commissioner Burress asked Mr. Miller if he thought the City would have an adequate defense.

 

Mr. Miller said it would depend on why type of suit was filed.

 

Commissioner Burress asked Mr. Miller if the neighbor’s homes were flooded would they have recourse against the City.

 

Mr. Miller said no, the City would not be responsible.

 

Ms. Stogsdill stated Staff would not approve a final plat until an H & H Study was completed; that was a requirement of the subdivision of property in the floodplain.

 

Commissioner Haase said if he was in Mr. Patterson’s position he would make the same argument.  He said he wanted to show no disrespect to the Patterson’s but there had been a tremendous amount of study and work on this project and it was time to move forward.

 

Commissioner Burress said he agreed but the neighbors should be given compensation.  He asked Staff if there could be a condition stating there had to be a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

 

Ms. Stogsdill said it could be recommended there be a condition that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant a variance from the GPI standard, prior to the City Commission either considering the rezoning request, or adopting an ordinance for the rezoning request.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to approve the request to rezone a tract of land approximately 536.88 acres, from A (Agriculture) and V-C (Valley Channel) to GPI (General Public and Institutional), and recommend approval based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:

                                     

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

 

Motion carried 9-1 with Commissioner Burress in opposition.  Student Commissioner Robb voted in the affirmative.

 

Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to recommend rezoning with the condition of first going to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance, and recommend approval based on the findings of fact in the Staff Report, with a condition to change the  language that said ‘shall have access’, and it not be optional.

 

Motion failed 2-8 with Commissioner Burress and Commissioner Harris in favor.  Student Commissioner Robb voted against.