PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 22 & 24, 2007
Meeting Minutes
_______________________________________________________________________
October 22, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Blaser, Chaney, Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, Harris, Hird, Jennings, Lawson, Moore
Staff present: McCullough, Stogsdill, Day, Rexwinkle, and Brown
_______________________________________________________________________
MINUTES
Discussion regarding September 24 & 26, 2007 draft minutes -
No corrections made.
Motioned by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Hird, to approve the minutes of the August 27 & 29, 2007 meeting.
Unanimously approved 10-0.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner Harris stated that the Transportation 2030 Committee met twice and the City consultants and KDOT were working on future cost estimates and impacts.
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 6 – Rezoning & Preliminary Development Plan for 618 W 12th Street
· Letter from Ginger Chance
· Letter from Dave Boulter
· Letter from the League of Women Voters
Items 13 & 14 – TA-09-21-07 & TA-09-22-07
Item 16 – Airport Business Park
· Memo from Staff + attachments
· Packet of communications from the public
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· Exparte:
Commissioner Harris received a call from a citizen regarding Item 6.
· Abstentions:
Commissioners Jennings and Eichhorn abstained from Item 4.
· Items 1A, 1B, 7, 8, 9, and 18 were deferred
PC Minutes 10/22/07
ITEM NO. 1A: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 6 WAK; LOCATED AT THE NW CORNER OF 6TH ST & WAKARUSA DR (SMS)
FDP-08-12-07: Final Development Plan for 6 WAK, 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.
Item 1A deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
ITEM NO. 1B: FINAL PLAT FOR WAKARUSA PLACE ADDITION NO. 2; LOCATED AT THE NW CORNER OF 6TH ST & WAKARUSA DR (SMS)
PF-09-25-06: Final Plat for Wakarusa Place Addition No. 2, located at the NW corner of 6th Street & Wakarusa Drive, North side of Highway 40. Submitted by BFA, Inc, for 6Wak Land Investments, LLC, and Village Meadows, LLC., property owner of record.
Item 1B deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
ITEM NO. 2: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR WIDTH OF LOCAL STREET R-O-W; 1105, 1116, 1117 WEST HILLS PKWY (JCR)
MS-07-08-07: Consider variance request from 20-810 regarding the width of local street right-of-way for 1105, 1116, and 1117 West Hills Parkway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for Robert Lewis, Scott & Mary Watson, Jerry & Sandra Nossaman, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Rexwinkle presented the item. Staff recommended denial of the variance request to waive the requirement to dedicate additional street right-of-way as required by Section 20-810(d)(4).
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. John Selk, represented the 3 owners of 1105, 1116 and 1117 West Hills Parkway. He said that the neighborhood had existed for 70 years. There were irregularities in the development of the project. The existing road is out of the ROW to the north of the property. He felt it was ridiculous to dedicate more ROW when it was not needed. The house on lot 2 would be razed and rebuilt. He felt it was a hardship because they were trying to keep the integrity of the neighborhood intact.
Mr. Robert Lewis, 1105 West Hills Parkway, expressed his hope to build a contemporary all digital house. The additional five feet restricts what they can do. He showed a map of the property lines. They would like a patio on the north end of the house and a basement under the patio to maximize space. He showed another drawing of properties in the area. He said there were no plans for additional traffic to go through the area.
Mr. Selk pointed on the map where the existing ROW was.
Commissioner Harris asked Staff if there were no plans by the city to widen the street.
Mr. Rexwinkle said there were no plans to widen the street that he was aware of.
Commissioner Harkins asked if they were just looking at a rule on the books.
Mr. Rexwinkle replied, yes, it is a required standard that the ROW be 60’ feet. The ROW issue is a standard that cannot be waived by Staff.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Selk said that if there ever had to be something done to the road there is adequate room to do that.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Harris felt that in this case there were compelling reasons to bend the rules because the ROW was unusual and she thought that the applicants concerns were valid and she would recommend approval.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Jennings, seconded by Commissioner Chaney to approve the variance request from 20-810 regarding the width of local street right-of-way for 1105, 1116, and 1117 West Hills Parkway.
Unanimously approved 10-0.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
ITEM NO. 3: IG TO CS; .499 ACRES; 612 & 616 N 2ND ST (SLD)
Z-09-17-07: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately .499 acres, from IG (General Industrial) to CS (Strip Commercial). The property is located at 612 & 616 N 2nd Street. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects LLC, for Parallel Properties LLC, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Sandra Day presented the item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, agreed with Staff Report but did not agree with all of the conditions. He said they plan on using the southern most entrance as an entrance only and he felt that it was a tremendous burden to put the entrance on one person. The new development code talks about CS district having shared access combined. A buffer yard will be provided to the east. A sidewalk would be negotiated. The carwash was not the best looking property and the applicant would like to improve the site but felt it should be a Site Plan.
Ms. Day that the item had both a public concern as well as an individual site concern. The rezoning could stand on it’s own without the site plan. Staff agreed that there would be a lot of improvements to the site. To remove it from the rezoning means it would be removed from the zoning ordinance, not consideration. Staff was not opposed to removing the condition.
Commissioner Moore asked if there was an access management plan in the works.
Ms. Day said there was a specific access management plan for 6th Street, but she did not recall one for N. 2nd Street. The properties were very narrow and had different requirements for off street parking. Closing the curb cut gave them some opportunities for onsite parking.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if this would be similar for what was being desired on 23rd Street for access management.
Ms. Day replied, yes.
Commissioner Jennings asked if the brick building on the property would be kept.
Mr. Werner replied, correct.
Commissioner Harris asked if the entrance only was a right turn in only.
Mr. Werner said yes, the entrance would be right turn in only.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the right in only turn could be changed at some point.
Ms. Day said that she thought it could be changed at some point.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked what the rationale for inclusion of a condition on the rezoning.
Ms. Day stated that it was a public hearing item.
Commissioner Lawson asked if the condition stayed on the rezoning, would it unlikely be washed out on the Site Plan.
Ms. Day said that Site Plans were only administrative. If the applicant was not satisfied with the Site Plan decision they could appeal to the City Commission. Staff felt that there was more weight to the condition if it was included in the rezoning.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked Mr. Werner if he was opposed to one entrance.
Mr. Werner said they were certainly not opposed to one entrance but that if the improvements became too much, the property would not be redeveloped. The Site Plan would give the applicant more time to talk to the property owner to the north.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
COMMISSION DISUCUSSION
Commissioner Harkins asked if currently there were three curb cuts and if that would be reduced to two with one right in only entrance.
Mr. Werner replied that was correct.
Commissioner Finkeldei was encouraged by the redevelopment of the site. He was conflicted about the difference between putting the condition on the rezoning or the Site plan. He felt that if there were going to be two access points those could be handled on the Site Plan.
Commissioner Eichhorn wanted to be consistent and defer with what Staff came up with. He did not want to see another study done just to come up with the same outcome as Staff.
Motioned by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Lawson, to approve the rezoning of .499 acres from IG (General Industrial) to CS (Strip Commercial) based on the findings presented in the staff report and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following condition:
1. Redevelopment shall be restricted to one access point and is recommended along the north property line to be shared with the adjoining property.
Motion failed 5-5. Commissioners Blaser, Eichhorn, Harris, Lawson, and Moore voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Chaney, Finkeldei, Harkins, Hird, and Jennings voted in opposition.
Commissioner Hird appreciated Staff’s work but felt that the condition could be handled on the Site Plan instead of the rezoning.
Commissioner Harkins felt the project was a huge improvement over the existing site and was worth letting Staff do a Site Plan.
Commissioner Harris inquired about the impact of having a right only turn.
Ms. Day said she did not know that it was necessary a right only turn. She thought the applicant meant that it would be an entrance only, so no existing. To establish a right only turn there would need to be a median on N 2nd Street and there was probably not room to create an angled right turn in.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Hird, to approve the rezoning of .499 acres from IG (General Industrial) to CS (Strip Commercial) based on the findings presented in the staff report and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval.
Motioned
carried 8-2, with Commissioners Blaser and Moore in opposition.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
ITEM NO. 4: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PINE RIDGE PLAZA; 3215 OUSDAHL (SLD)
PDP-09-04-07: Preliminary Development Plan for Pine Ridge Plaza, located at 3215 Ousdahl Road. The plan proposes the construction of a 13,500 s.f. commercial business in multiple phases. Submitted by Grob Engineering Services, LLC, for Chavez II Development, LLC, Property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Sandra Day presented the item.
Commissioner Harkins stated that when the development occurs to the east of the area there will be a lot of people living in that area. He was curious about potential pedestrian access to shops.
Ms. Day said that it would not be a good area for pedestrians. She showed on the map that if there was a sidewalk brought all the way through it would need to cross a drainage area and service/loading areas. She said it would probably be better to bring a walk way to 33rd Street.
APPLIANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Dean Grob, Grob Engineering Services, was concerned about the condition to construct the entire parking area during Phase I of the development. It would require more grading and fill up front. He thought that Staff was concerned about the use of the building being changed in the future. He stated that the worst case scenario for parking would require 10-18 parking spaces for the first building. They did not need all 23 parking stalls.
Commissioner Moore asked if the parking was just a financial feasibility.
Mr. Grob stated that was correct, and for lack of use.
Commissioner Blaser asked if the applicant had to do fill wouldn’t they start the project with that since usually with build out the fill is all done at the same time.
Mr. Grob stated that if a dock was needed on the back it would not need to be filled to the same height.
Commissioner Harris asked if the use restrictions apply to Lot 1B.
Ms. Day replied no, the restrictions would only apply to all buildings on Lot 1A.
Commissioner Harris asked if the fill would go into the drainage easement.
Mr. Grob responded, no.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if constructing all parking was a condition.
Ms. Day stated that it was in the Staff Report but not listed in the conditions.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if part of the reduction the applicant should go ahead and construct them all at once.
Ms. Day replied that was correct.
Commissioner Harkins asked if there was middle ground on the parking and if they could require that the entire parking lot be grated out in the first phase of construction.
Commissioner Harris asked if parking was constructed as shown and then the second building required more parking, would there then be curbing around that area that would be taken out to meet those parking needs.
Ms. Day replied yes and showed on a map where the unpaved parking would be if they did not pave it.
Mr. Grob said that if the proposed building would be modified for another use, the additional parking would just be an added cost. He went on to say that if they changed the use of the building they would have to come back to Planning Commission to make that request.
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired if the entire parking lot was required to be finished would they also have to do grading.
Mr. Grob replied, yes.
Commissioner Lawson asked what the impact would be if the second building was taken out and if that would make parking simpler and more straight forward.
Ms. Day said not necessarily, she was not sure how much grading would be done in that area.
Commissioner Lawson asked if the parking would be sufficient if it were only for the first building.
Ms. Day replied that was correct. Adding another building would require more parking.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Harkins asked if the PDP was approved could it be changed without it coming back to Planning Commission.
Ms. Day said that it would be heard by Planning Commission if any changes were made.
Commissioner Harkins asked why all parking spaces were required if the applicant could not make changes without being heard by Planning Commission again.
Ms. Day said that Staff had concerns about the adequacy of the parking as it stands. If there was an additional tenant with vehicles associated with their business, there would be nowhere for the overflow parking to go. Staff was willing to look at an onsite parking condition for the FDP.
Commissioner Blaser stated that the standard would say to finish the entire parking lot.
Mr. Grob said that having the parking spaces was not going to change anything, all they would be doing was spending money and that it could be a $50,000 expense. There was already a condition that restricted retail uses so he felt that was enough.
Commissioner Lawson stated that there has been considerable review of the project. He did not feel it was the Commissions burden to modify the site for the applicant to accomplish what they want.
Commissioner Hird asked if the parking was adequate with the limitations on the building as proposed.
Ms. Day said possibly, it was unknown if a second tenant would change the factors. The second tenant might have vehicles for their business.
Commissioner Hird asked if there was a limitation on what type of tenant could occupy the building.
Ms. Day replied, yes.
Commissioner Hird was hesitant to make an applicant build something that was not needed right away.
Ms. Day said there was no requirement that applied to business vehicles and that was where the concern about parking came from.
Commissioner Harkins asked the applicant to address the cost of adding parking.
Mr. Grob thought there were 14 parking stalls with the initial plan. The original parking requirement of 1 space for every 200’. There would be a FDP for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd building. He went on to say that they cannot change anything without coming back to Planning Commission and the stipulations are there to keep them from doing that.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that maybe a condition that said 17 parking spaces would be the middle ground and then a decision could be made during the FDP.
Mr. McCullough said that a few islands could be reduced.
Commissioner Harris suggested that the condition say that all parking shall be provided on site. She thought it might be an easier way to address the issue.
Commissioner Moore agreed with Commissioner Hird and felt that what the applicant proposed in the first phase was good.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the applicant and Staff would be in agreement to changing the layout for Phase 1 to a total of 20 parking spaces for.
Mr. Grob preferred building 18 parking stalls with Phase 1.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Hird, seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to approve the Preliminary Development Plan based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of the following waivers and reductions
a. Yard reductions along the north side to a minimum of 10’ side yard/peripheral yard setback;
b. Yard reductions along the west side to 12 feet rear yard setback;
c. Yard reductions along the east side to 15 feet front/peripheral yard setback;
d. Off-street parking from 68 spaces to 23 spaces.
2. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to show the building entry to Building 1 & 2 oriented to the street either with direct access or an angled front entry to the buildings.
3. Removal of the first stalls along the east property line on either side of the drive entrance and extension of that area as green space.
4. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to include the following changes:
a. Pursuant to City Code a minimum elevation for building opening (MEBO) for the lot shall be shown;
b. Provision of a note that states that land uses shall be restricted for Lot 1A to contractor office/shop uses or those uses that have a parking ratio of 1 space per 400 NSF or larger. Retail uses that have a parking ratio between 1 space per 100 NSF to 1 space per 300 NSF has been excluded unless a revised Preliminary Development Plan is approved;
c. Provision of a revised drawing to show a strike thru the listed uses on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that do not meet the recommend parking standard of 1 space per 400 NSF or larger;
d. Revision to the note stating “These proposed setbacks are in conformance with the base district requirements” to “These proposed setbacks are in conformance with the setbacks for the adjacent CS zoning district”.
5. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to add the following notes:
a. “Per City code Chapter IX Article 09-903 (B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be released for building permits until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.”
b. Add the following notes to the “General Notes”:
i. “The drainage easement will be privately-owned and maintained. The developer is responsible for establishing ownership and maintenance of same via individual owner maintenance.”
ii. “No construction or maintenance of natural or non-natural structures or vegetative barriers (including but not limited to trees, shrubbery, berms, fence and walls) will be allowed within the drainage easements.”
6. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to include the following revisions recommended by the Planning Commission that the initial development of the parking lot include a total of 18 spaces.
Motion carried 7-1-2, with Commissioner Lawson in opposition. Commissioners Eichhorn and Jennings abstained from the vote.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
ITEM NO. 5: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; 264 E 2100 ROAD (SLD)
CUP-08-08-07: Conditional Use Permit for a retail nursery at 264 E 2100 Road. Submitted by William Voigts Jr., property owner of record. This will be a joint meeting with Baldwin City Planning Commission.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Sandra Day presented the item.
No members from Baldwin Planning Commission were present but they did send a letter of support.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. William Voigts, Jr. was present for questioning.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked the applicant how long he had been operating at the location.
Mr. Voigts said about 8 years.
Commissioner Eichhorn inquired about the nature of the violation that brought about the CUP request.
Mr. Voigts said that they sold pet feed, which made up about 2-3% of their business.
Commissioner Harkins asked if Keith Dabney, Director of County Zoning & Codes, was okay with the CUP.
Ms. Day replied, yes.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to approve the Conditional Use Permit CUP-08-08-07 for retail nursery and forward it to the County Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact stated in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
Unanimously approved 10-0.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
ITEM NO. 6A: CN1 & RM32 TO PCD-2; .746 ACRES; 618 W 12 TH ST (SLD)
Z-07-13-07: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately .746 acres, from CN1 (Inner Neighborhood Commercial) & RM32 (Multi-Dwelling Residential) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development). The property is located at 618 W 12th Street. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for Triple T, LLC, property owner of record. (Public Hearing continued from September 24, 2007)
ITEM NO. 6B: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR OREAD CIRCLE; 618 W 12TH ST (SLD)
PDP-07-03-07: Preliminary Development Plan for Oread Circle (Oread Inn), located at 618 W 12th Street. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for Triple T, LLC, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Sandra Day presented items 6A and 6B together. She noted that the applicant was proposing an additional 4th level of underground parking to the proposed plan.
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired if the applicant wanted to build the entire project as condominiums, would there be something to prevent them from doing that.
Ms. Day said that if the applicant were to propose condominiums that it would be presented before Planning Commission again. Staff supported the 4th level of parking. She also stated there was a typo in the Staff Report, the setback on Indiana was 2 inches, not 2 feet.
APPLICATION PRESENTATION
Mr. Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, agreed with the Staff Reports. He said that he was comfortable with where they were at with parking and the square footage and now that he had Staff Reports with the conditions, he felt that they could work with the parking space numbers. He stated that the parking level 4 would add square footage but it would be adding parking spaces. There will be 104 guest rooms and they are limited to 26 condominiums based on the residential aspect of the project.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the number of guest rooms increased would the parking then need to increase too.
Mr. Werner replied, probably so. If 4 more guest rooms were needed, then 4 more parking spaces would be needed. If 3 guest rooms were converted to 3 condominiums that is why they used different parking space calculations.
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired if the terraces considered as open space would be open to the hotel guests or just the condominium occupants.
Mr. Werner said that the open space terraces would be open for all the tenants. There would also be private terraces that were not counted as open space.
Commissioner Harkins inquired about traffic issues.
Mr. Werner stated that they would be widening 12th Street 3 feet and pulling a median back 5 feet. The street improvements would not start until May so that they can be sure they are doing it right. He also said they have talked to Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, about why buses have a hard time turning down Louisiana and Mr. Werner feels this project would improve the area.
Commissioner Harris wanted to know more about the Staff Report condition that stated open space terraces could not be enclosed without approval.
Ms. Day said that Staff did not recommend the open space terraces be enclosed. She said the condition was worded the way that it was so that if the applicant decided to enclose the open space terraces in the future that they would have to have a public hearing instead of being administratively approved.
Commissioner Harris inquired about redeveloping the neighborhood as mentioned in the Staff Report.
Ms. Day said there was some interest in some of the elements of the project. She thought there might be desire in the neighborhood for someplace to pick up coffee or a sandwich.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked about the communication letter from the attorney for the Crossing and if the issues discussed in it had been resolved.
Mr. Werner stated that the issue had been resolved.
PUBLIC HEARING
Candice Davis, lives in the Oread neighborhood, said she is from the neighborhood association that had been working with the developer. She appreciated the developer working with them from an early point and said that most of the neighborhood association felt the project could be positive. She was still concerned about parking. She also said that in early talks with the developer they had mentioned saving the Oread Apartments as well as a house south of the Oread Apartments, which she felt would be positive. The neighborhood association was also in favor of improvements to the intersection. She was not personally opposed to the height of the building. She also expressed that she would prefer that the building had extended stay units instead of condominiums and would also prefer uncovered terraces.
Dennis Domer, expressed his concern about the size of the building. He felt that a signature building needed to give distinction to a City and he did not feel that this building would. He said that it would need to look better the closer you got to it if it was going to bring distinction to the City. He again said that the building was too large in scale and that the building was crammed on the site and had to have a number of waivers to fit. He stated that the Historic Resources Commission denied it primarily because of the scale of the building. He did not feel it was consistent with the established patterns of the neighborhood. He also felt that it was not architecturally designed well. He stated that the building had no architecture merit so it could not be a signature building because of that.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked Mr. Domer if there was a signature building in Lawrence that met his criteria.
Mr. Domer said that Lawrence had a signature Downtown. He also felt that the Douglas County Courthouse and Natural History building were signature buildings.
Commissioner Lawson asked Mr. Domer if the design met with greater satisfaction would that be enough to overcome the issues of scale and mass.
Mr. Domer replied yes.
Commissioner Harkins said that he had a hard time of getting any sense of architectural symmetry on the KU campus and felt that the Oread building would look better than ¾ of the buildings on campus.
Commissioner Harris said that she received ex parte from Dan Rockhill, KU Architecture Department, and he felt that a lot could be done to increase energy efficiency. He felt that 3-D models might help for a feel of the scale of the building.
Mr. Domer thought that 3-D models might help in getting an idea of how it would fit into the neighborhood.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Werner said that aesthetics were difficult and that this was a land issue. He said that they met with the KU Dean of the Architecture school and he had some good points and it was a good meeting. Mr. Werner said they agreed to disagree about the aesthetics of the building. Mr. Werner also felt that the PCD zoning waivers they asked for were not that bad. He said that the Historic Resources Commission missed an opportunity and they did not offer suggestions they just said “it’s too tall, no.” He felt the plan was efficient with floor space and that parking had been their ultimate concern.
Commissioner Lawson asked for clarification on the parking levels.
Mr. Werner said that the parking would really be 3 ½ levels, because the slope of the site, one of the lots is really only ½ parking lot. He said that there would be 188-190 parking spaces.
Commissioner Harris asked if all of the parking would be valet.
Mr. Werner replied, correct, it would most likely be all valet parking.
Commissioner Harris inquired if it would be paid valet parking.
Mr. Werner said that they would almost have to do paid valet parking to keep students from parking in it.
COMMISSION DISUCUSSION
Commissioner Harkins felt that some of the comments regarding architecture were a little outside of what the Commission was looking at. He said that private buildings over the past 30 years have been better looking then public buildings and that he liked the appearance of the building.
Commissioner Hird said at first he was surprised by the height and scale of the building but he hoped the open terraces would be for public use, and that would help him accept the building more. The addition of the parking level with about 30 additional spaces is a good improvement and he was glad to see that. He said he was not qualified to comment on the architecture but he liked the initial look of the building.
Commissioner Blaser inquired about how much cost the City would incur for the project.
Ms. Day said the Developer would take care of the improvement costs to the streets and sewer.
Commissioner Lawson asked if that would include the Oread Avenue improvements.
Mr. Thomas Fritzel, the project developer, indicated the improvements would be paid for by the development.
Ms. Day replied, yes.
Commissioner Lawson said he would not be terribly offended by another building being added to the landscape view of the city.
Commissioner Jennings asked if the building was 50 feet lower than Fraser Hall.
Mr. Werner replied that was correct.
Commissioner Hird said he was surprised there were not more public speakers on this issue but that they did received a lot of written comments on the project and that he wanted the public to know that the Commission had read every comment in considering the project.
Commissioner Lawson was also surprised to see that the League of Women Voter letter was mild and he felt that said a lot.
Commissioner Harris had mixed feelings about the project and felt that the scale of the project was too big. She was concerned that patrons eating at the restaurant might not use valet parking and felt it might put a burden on the neighborhood.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that the parking area across the street would become available after 5pm when the students are gone so that would free up parking for people wanting to eat dinner there.
Commissioner Harris felt that it was important for KU students to have a place to go and get a drink or sandwich after class.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that there were several other bars in the area, the Wheel and the Hawk.
ACTION TAKEN ON ITEM NO. 6A
Motioned by Commissioner Hird, seconded by Commissioner Chaney to approve the rezoning of .746 acres from CN1 (Inner Neighborhood commercial and RM32 (Multi-Dwelling Residential) District to PCD [Oread Inn] Planned Commercial District based on the findings presented in the staff report and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried 9-1, with Commissioner Harris in opposition.
ACTION TAKEN ON ITEM NO. 6B
Motioned by Commissioner Hird, seconded by Commissioner Chaney to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for Oread Inn based on the findings presented in the staff report and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of the following waivers and reductions:
2. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to include the following notes and changes:
Motion carried 9-1, with
Commissioner Harris in opposition.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
ITEM NO. 7: 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/parcel width and the establishment of setbacks along roads based upon road classification.
Item 7 deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
ITEM NO. 8: AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 8, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-11-13-06: Consider amendments to Article 8 of the Development Code to correct errors and inconsistencies initiated by the Planning Commission on November 15, 2006.
Item 8 deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
ITEM NO. 9: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 20-601, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-07-14-07: Consider amendments to Section 20-601 of the Development Code to revise setbacks for the IG District when abutting residential zoning districts.
Item 9 deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
ITEM NO. 10: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 20-403, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-08-16-07: Consider amendments to Section 20-403 of the Development Code to add veterinary clinic as a permitted use in the IBP District.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle presented item. The Development Code does not permit veterinary clinics in the IBP District which has created a number of nonconforming use situations because such uses were legally established under the former zoning code.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to approve the proposed revisions [TA-08-16-07] to Section 20-403 of the Development Code, and forward to the City Commission.
Unanimously approved 10-0.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
ITEM NO. 11: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 20-813, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-08-18-07: Consider amendments to Section 20-813 of the Development Code to clarify the Planning Commission’s Powers and Duties.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle presented item. Application of the Subdivision Regulations has revealed an error to Section 20-813(b)(2) which states that the Planning Commission approves final plats. Such applications are administratively approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to approve the proposed revisions [TA-08-18-07] to Section 20-813(b)(2) of the Development Code, and forward to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
Unanimously approved 10-0.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
ITEM NO. 12: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 20-804, 20-805, 20-811 DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-09-20-07: Consider amendments to Sections 20-804, 20-805, 20-808, and 20-811 of the Development Code to clarify that water service must be purchased from and conveyed by a publicly treated water source.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle presented item. A loophole exists in the existing language which permits a person dividing his/her property to do so without purchasing publicly treated water, delivered to the site by a public infrastructure (such as water lines, meters, etc.).
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if rural water districts were a public source of water.
Mr. Rexwinkle replied, yes.
Commissioner Harris asked if a person would need to purchase the water line before they divided their property.
Mr. Rexwinkle stated they would need to provide Planning with documentation saying they can obtain the water meter.
Commissioner Hird said he was going to abstain from voting on the item because he served on the Rural Water District #2 board.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if someone could divide land but not get water to it.
Mr. Rexwinkle said that in some areas there are waiting lists to get water, and Planning needs documentation that water will be available. The building permit may not be available at the same time. Planning just needs proof that they can obtain water to approve the certificate of survey.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if someone just put their name on a list that the meter/water would be available at some future time.
Mr. Rexwinkle replied that was correct.
Commissioner Harkins stated the risk was on the property owner of whether or not they could get water.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that the text amendment would close the loop hole where an individual could purchase water and hold it in a cistern until a meter was available. The County Commission allowed that one instance to happen, but they suggested that a text amendment be approved to close that loop hole. That was the specific issue being addressed.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if this issue only effects property in the UGA.
Ms. Stogsdill replied, yes.
Commissioner Harkins asked if people could not divide their property without a water meter.
Mr. Rexwinkle clarified that a home could not be built without a certificate of survey.
Mr. McCullough stated the reason the splitting process exists was to qualify for a building permit in the UGA, so yes it was tied to being able to get a water meter. The rural water district would provide documentation to Planning that they can secure a water meter for them.
Commissioner Harkins agreed with the intent of the text amendment but felt that securing a future water meter through the Rural Water District was pointless and did not feel it would be fair to the developer.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that he knew of a lawsuit in Eudora where the City of Eudora does not want to pay for lots that the Rural Water District 4 would provide for in the future.
Commissioner Lawson agreed with Commissioner Harkins that land should not be split prior to getting water because water may not be available when a house is constructed.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that the flip side was a split would be approved and then that person would sell the land to an innocent 3rd party that thought they had a buildable residential lot with water available.
Commissioner Jennings served on the Rural Water District #5 board a few years ago and water meters were around $6,200.00. People would put their name on a list and pay $500 down and then once they get a letter saying the water meter was available they had 30 days to pay the difference.
Commissioner Hird said the way Rural Water District #2 worked was a person would have 1 year to acquire the meter. He felt that Commissioner Harkins was right because the engineering study could show later that it cannot support more water meters.
Mr. McCullough said that Planning made sure the land was eligible for a water meter and that maybe they could put a note on the Certificate of Survey that a meter was required prior to a building permit being issued.
Commissioner Harris felt it was important that people know that they may or may not be able to acquire a water meter.
Commissioner Harkins said to make it stick the developers should have to purchase the water meter as a condition of splitting.
Commissioner Hird said that Bartlett & West does the engineering for Rural Water District #2 and when a letter is issued to an applicant they are eligible for a water meter they are required to include that.
Commissioner Harkins said he was more comfortable letting the buyer beware because he felt that anyone building a home in the country knows they need to get water before they build.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that one extreme would be to make applicants purchase water meters up front, and the other extreme was not to mention water meters at all. The text amendment was not a perfect solution but it was middle ground.
Commissioner Harkins thought that the County Commission should know that this text amendment may not have a good outcome.
Commissioner Hird stated that on the first page of Staff Report it discusses the loop hole that permits water to be delivered through public infrastructure but the Development Code does not mention that. He suggested adding the wording of “delivered through public infrastructure and water meter.”
Commissioner Lawson said he would probably vote against it because he did not feel that the County had not dealt with the issue at hand.
Commissioner Harkins said he would vote against it too.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to approve the proposed revisions [TA-09-20-07] to Sections 20-804, 20-805, 20-808, 20-811 and 20-816 of the Development Code, with the revision of “delivered through public infrastructure and water meter” and forward to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
Motion carried 5-4-1, with Commissioners Blaser, Chaney, Eichhorn, Finkeldei, and Moore in favor. Commissioners Harkins, Harris, Jennings, and Lawson voted in opposition. Commissioner Hird abstained.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
ITEM NO. 13: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 20-804, 20-805, 20-808, 20-815, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-09-21-07: Consider amendments to Sections 20-804, 20-805, 20-808, and 20-815 of the Development Code to clarify that access shall be taken from a hard-surfaced road.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle presented item. In applying the Subdivision Regulations, a number of issues have been identified which require revisions to the text adopted. Adoption of the initiated revisions will improve the implementation of the Subdivision Regulations. TA-09-21A-07 to TA-09-21D-07 represents specific amendments to Article 8 as outlined below.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if dust inhibitor would count as exceeding the standards.
Mr. Rexwinkle said as far as he knew, yes. If it was something that would inhibit dust then it would exceed the standards.
Commissioner Harris asked how this would effect the development in the area.
Mr. Rexwinkle said that currently property cannot be divided in the UGA unless it has a hard surface road.
Ms. Stogsdill said that this was one of the issues looked at by the County Commission in March because Grant Township cannot maintain hard surface roads, therefore people living in Grant Township could not divide their property.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if a rock road was able to be subdivided if it met or exceeded the standard.
Ms. Stogsdill replied, yes.
Commissioner Harris asked how many of the county roads in the UGA met or exceeded the standards.
Ms. Stogsdill said she did not know but that Keith Browning, County Public Works Director, was one if the reviewers of Certificate of Surveys.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Lawson, seconded by Commissioner Chaney to approve the proposed revisions [TA-09-21-07] to Section 20-804(c)(1)(viii), 20-805(c)(1)(iv), 20-808(c)(2), and 20-815 of the Development Code, to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
Motion carried 8-2, with Commissioners Harris and Eichhorn in opposition.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
ITEM NO. 14: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 20-804, 20-805, 20-810, 20-815, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-09-22-07: Consider amendments to Sections 20-804, 20-805, 20-810 and 20-815 of the Development Code to eliminate the requirement for Conservation Easements and create a requirement for Resource Preservation Agreements for Certificate’s of Survey in Lawrence’s Urban Growth Area.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle presented item. The existing language in the Subdivision Regulations requires the dedication of conservation easements with applications for property divisions in the Urban Growth Areas of Unincorporated Douglas County when sensitive lands exist on the subject property. The Board of County Commissioners has indicated that the intent of the regulations when written was not to require the dedication of conservation easements but to only require that sensitive lands identified for resource conservation in Section 20-810(j) be set aside for potential future conservation upon annexation by a city. The Board of County Commissioners has initiated this amendment to eliminate the requirement for conservation easements and insert new language discussing temporarily setting aside land identified in Section 20-810(j) with an agreement which temporarily prohibits development for a period of time until two years following annexation by a city, thus allowing the city to obtain the set aside land for recreational, park or open space use.
Commissioner Harkins supported the change and felt it was a good solution.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the text amendment only applied to sensitive lands.
Mr. Rexwinkle said the way the language read now it only applied to sensitive land.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked who decided if it was sensitive land.
Mr. Rexwinkle stated that there are some sensitive lands that are identified by provisions in the Subdivision Regulations, but that the Planner would work with the developer on a site by site basis.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if this would allow for the ability to have non sensitive land with public uses without having all of it put in a subdivision.
Mr. Rexwinkle said that the conservation easement language as it is currently written allows the City to have the option of retaining the land, upon annexation, if the City exercises this right within two years of annexation.
Commissioner Harris asked if this applied to the Future Development Area in Cluster Development.
Mr. Rexwinkle stated that these lands usually would be included in the future development area.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the future development area had to be set aside regardless if there were sensitive lands present.
Mr. Rexwinkle replied that was correct.
Commissioner Harris asked what if the City wanted to purchase the set aside land and does not have the money to do it within two years of annexation.
Mr. Rexwinkle stated that if there is a site in the city that has over 5% of the land as sensitive lands, you have to do a Planned Development so that gives us tools in retaining the land.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Hird, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to approve the revisions proposed to Sections 20-804(c)(2), 20-805(c)(2), 20-810(j) and 20-815 of the Development Code, and forward to the City Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.
Unanimously approved 10-0.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
ITEM NO. 15: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 20-807, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-09-23-07: Consider amendments to Section 20-807 of the Development Code to create a procedure for amending approved Certificate’s of Survey.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joseph Rexwinkle presented item. The Subdivision Regulations do not provide a procedure for amending an approved Certificate of Survey in any way. A provision which would allow reasonable modifications to parcel lines and amendments to the Build Out Plan, Immediate Development Area or Future Development Area should be created.
Commissioner Harris asked if adjacent land owners would be notified if changes would be made.
Mr. Rexwinkle said it would still go through the same procedure as a Certificate of Survey.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Hird, seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to approve the revisions [TA-09-23-07] to Section 20-807 of the Development Code, and forward to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
Unanimously approved 10-0.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
MISC. ITEM NO. 1:
Old Business: Reconsideration of proposed revision [TA-11-13-06 to Section 20-801(e) (3) of the Lawrence Development Code and Chapter XII of the Douglas County Code] regarding the intent to vest existing residences built in the county located in A, A-1, R-1 and V-C Districts.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joe Rexwinkle presented the item. Late in the adoption process, an omission in the applicable zoning districts listed in section 20-801(e)(3) was identified. The intent of the August amendment to the Vested Rights section was to vest existing residences built in the county (after they were split off from a larger tract of land through an exception process). There should be four districts listed in section 20-801 (e)(3) that it applies to (A, A-1, R-1 and V-C) but, the V-C (Valley Channel) district was inadvertently omitted. Rather than return the entire ‘package’ of text amendments acted on by the Planning Commission in August and the Governing Bodies in September, the city’s legal staff has determined it is appropriate to create a new text amendment for this change for public hearing by the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to approve the proposed revision [TA-11-13-06 to Section 20-801(e) (3) of the Lawrence Development Code and Chapter XII of the Douglas County Code, the jointly adopted Lawrence/Douglas County Subdivision Regulations and forward to the County Commission and City Commission.
Unanimously approved 10-0.
MISC. ITEM NO. 2:
Property owner’s request for a 6 month extension for Lake Pointe PCD Final Development Plan (FDP-04-04-06) which will expire on 11/22/07 per Section 20-1013(d) of the 1966 Zoning Ordinance, under which the development plan was approved. (MKM)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Sheila Stogsdill presented the item.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Blaser, to approve the 6 month extension request for Lake Pointe PCD Final Development Plan (FDP-04-04-06).
Unanimously approved 10-0.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
MISC. ITEM NO. 3:
Consider initiation of text amendments to the Land Development Code identified by Planning Staff. (MKM)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Scott McCullough presented the item.
Commissioner Harkins gave the example of 25 acre land with walnut trees being a valuable asset. He wanted to know if this Text Amendment would prevent the trees from being cut down.
Mr. McCullough said that only a percentage of the land was require to be saved.
Commissioner Harkins felt that this was creating too strict of regulations.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if Planning was looking at ways to encourage saving sensitive lands.
Mr. McCullough said that was correct.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to initiate the proposed amendments to the above-described sections of the Land Development Code for consideration at a future public hearing.
Approved 9-0-1 with Commissioner Harkins abstaining.
MISC. ITEM NO. 4:
Request for approval to extend the Revised Final Development Plan of The Legends at KU Phase II; FDP-02-03-06, approved 4/17/06 (SLD)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Sheila Stogsdill presented the item. Staff recommended a 6 month extension as stipulated by the Development Code.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Blaser, to approve the 6 month extension request for the Revised Final Development Plan of The Legends at KU Phase II (FDP-02-03-06).
Unanimously approved 10-0.
PC Minutes 10/22/07
Consideration of any other business to come before the Commission.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked Staff to work on a definition of unnecessary hardship (gave example of Item #2, MS-07-08-07)
Commissioner Harris thought that how they handled Item 2 was a good process so she had mixed feelings about this.
Mr. McCullough said the process would remain the same but the definition could change so that Staff could look at it in a different way.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to initiate a text amendment to define “unnecessary hardship.”
Unanimously approved 10-0.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Recess at 11:05pm until 6:30 P.M. on October 24, 2007.
PC Minutes 10/24/07
_______________________________________________________________________
Reconvene October 24, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Blaser, Chaney, Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, Harris, Moore and Student Commissioner Robb
Staff present: McCullough, Stogsdill, Bond, Gock, Leininger, J. Miller, M. Miller, Patterson, and Brown
_______________________________________________________________________
BEGIN PUBLIC HEARING (OCTOBER 24, 2007):
COMMUNICATIONS
· None
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte
· Abstentions:
Commissioner Lawson abstained from item 16. Commissioner Moore abstained from item 21.
PC Minutes 10/24/07
ITEM NO. 16A: ANNEXATION OF 144.959 ACRES; AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK NO. 1 (PGP)
A-06-05-07: Annexation of approximately 144.959 acres located at E 1500 Road and US Hwy 24/40. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for Roger Pine, Pine Family Investments, LC, and Kathleen and Brian Pine, property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 16B: A & B-2 TO IL; 99.31 ACRES; E 1500 ROAD & US HWY 24/40 (PGP)
Z-06-09-07: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 99.31 acres, from A (Agricultural) and B-2 (General Business) Districts to IL (Limited Industrial) District with use restrictions. The property is located at the intersection of E 1500 Road and US Hwy 24/40. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for Roger Pine, Pine Family Investments, LC, and Kathleen and Brian Pine, property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 16C: A & B-2 TO IL; 43.48 ACRES; E 1500 ROAD & US HWY 24/40 (PGP)
Z-06-10-07: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 43.48 acres, from A (Agricultural) and B-2 (General Business) Districts to IL (Limited Industrial) District. The property is located at the intersection of E 1500 Road and US Hwy 24/40. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for Roger Pine, Pine Family Investments, LC, and Kathleen and Brian Pine, property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 16D: A & B-2 TO IL-FP; 26.22 ACRES; E 1500 ROAD & US HWY 24/40 (PGP)
Z-06-11-07: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 26.22 acres, from A (Agricultural) & B-2 (General Business) Districts to IL-FP (Limited Industrial-Floodplain Overlay) District. The property is located at the intersection of E 1500 Road and US Hwy 24/40. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for Roger Pine, Pine Family Investments, LC, and Kathleen and Brian Pine, property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 16E: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK NO. 1; E 1500 ROAD & US HWY 24/40 (PGP)
PP-06-07-07: Preliminary Plat for Airport Business Park No. 1, located at E 1500 Road & US Hwy 24/40. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for Roger Pine, Pine Family Investments, LC, and Kathleen and Brian Pine, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Paul Patterson presented items 16A – 16E together.
Mr. Matt Bond, City Stormwater Engineer, gave overview of current drainage patters and what they would be after the proposed project. He stated the only change in the drainage patterns would be everything that falls west of 7th Street, north of KTA and south of 24/40 Hwy would be diverted to the east and eventually end up in Mud Creek and then the Kansas River.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked when the levee was built.
Mr. Bond responded that the levee was started in the early 1960’s and finished in 1976, with revisions up to 1980.
Commissioner Blaser stated that the map indicated that the water would come across I-70 and then have to go back under I-70 to go to the east.
Mr. Bond stated that that was what the current FEMA map shows. Water backs up from the pump station on 2nd Street and then backs up to water surface elevation, finds a breakover point, and then runs east.
Commissioner Blaser asked what it would look like if 7th Street was cut off.
Mr. Bond stated that it would not change.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Jes Santaularia felt there was a community need for additional industrial sites. He stated that the island annexation was done a while ago and the bulk of the land sits between the airport and city. The project would “fill” in city limits and connect to the airport island. The long-range plans for the area call for industrial uses, and the project would be adjacent to primary modes of transportation. Mr. Santaularia went on to say that this is a long term plan and it may take 10 years to develop the site. The property and sales tax revenue and residential base to service the area was a great opportunity over the years. It would provide jobs and bring new business to the community. He stated that the zoning annexation was a natural evolution of what would occur over time in the area. The development should serve as a catalyst to current needs in Lawrence. The plan represented the convergence of lots of ideas and it is compliant with the city code.
Mr. Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, agreed with the vast majority of conditions on the staff reports. There were only a few of the Preliminary Plat conditions (1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 1f) that they had questions about and would like to continue discussing with Staff. He stated that they used guide plans to dictate how they planed for a project like this. One of the guides that they used was the Comprehensive Plan that preceded Horizon 2020 (H2020). Plan 95 had generally 9 criteria for the selection of an industrial site and their proposal met all 9 criteria. Their site conformed to the 3 main requirements; available rail service, a minimum of acreage for present & future use, and a location outside of the floodplain.
Mr. Herndon cited supporting documents such as H2020, land use chapter 7, which stated that the city should have several major industrial areas that provide employment to the community. He proceeded to read from H2020, which states that the Airport area was indicated for industrial uses and recommended annexation. He cited more supporting documents, such as the draft North of North Street Area Plan which identifies the Airport area will receive expanded business uses. Other standard documents used for the project were the North Lawrence Drainage Study, the Stormwater Management Ordinance, Development Code, and Commercial Design Guidelines.
Mr. Herndon continued by saying that the proposed site area already had a significant amount of annexed property and that this annexation would link the annexed island with the city to have a continuous annexed area.
He noted a staff report from August 2003 which set the foundation for expansion because it anticipated industrial growth. The proposed use was anticipated by the City. He said that in looking at Site Context they identified roads as the boundary of the general context. He said the total area was over 2000 acres. One of the primary elements that exists within the area was the designated FEMA floodplain. 676 acres was FEMA floodplain property. 482 acres was the Lawrence Municipal Airport, 287 acres KU Endowment, 42 acres Kansas Turnpike, 145 acres proposed Lawrence Airport Business Park.
Open Space has been a key element and will remain that way. The Runway Protection Zone is a 12 acre tract that does not actually have runway on it, but is an area at the south tip of the runway that is forbidden from anything being constructed. That area would perpetually be open space. Another significant component was the proposed floodplain management zones, dedicated to protect, preserve, and prevent development within the designated floodplain areas. The floodplain overlay management areas account for 2 feet of freeboard above the base flood elevation so they are larger tracts of land then the actual floodplain. They protect a margin around the designated floodplain area.
Another important component was the R-O-W, setbacks, and easements that will prevent any structures from being constructed, which would be almost 19% of the project. The total Open Space provided with the project would be 66 acres, including 3 ½ miles of public sidewalks to the area. It would also likely include a picnic area, park, walkways, and other possible options.
The Development Code states that a commercial element can exist in light industrial zoned areas. Commercial zoning would allow a variety of commercial uses. When we adopt the requested zoning it would be restricted and the amount of zoning would be reduced to a total of 20 acres. We are not increasing an undesirable use at the intersection. The estimated phase would start with a 120,000 s.f. speck building. The second phase would include 53 acres and phase three would include 92 acres, including commercial uses.
We discussed the floodplain, relative to the project boundary, margins of the floodplain area are preserved. In terms of stormwater management, we have a couple of Baldwin Creek contributories. In significant rain events the rain is carried to the eastern direction. Traffic improvements would include the turnpike underway with major improvement to the east Lawrence interchange with anticipated increased traffic. The Airport Business Park project would improve N 1500 Rd, US 24/40, additional new streets, and improvements to TP Junction and N 3rd Street I-70 on/off ramp.
Commissioner Moore inquired about improvements to 24/40 Hwy.
Mr. Bond said that improvements to 24/40 Hwy was part of an overall plan outside of this project.
Commissioner Harris inquired about the FEMA maps being updated.
Mr. Bond stated that more accurate topographical aerials will result in new maps.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Mr. Bond if he anticipated any new areas being included in the floodplain.
Mr. Bond replied, no.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked about channel improvements on tract A.
Mr. Bond stated it would be used for pad sites. When Maple Grove backs up it will go there and provide extra storage for Mud Creek.
Commissioner Harkins asked about the risks of the project being built out over a period of years with some of the modifications added over years for runoff.
Mr. Bond stated that as each project is built they would be looked at then. Based on what is to the north would dictate when those improvements are done.
Commissioner Harkins asked how much of that would be the City’s responsibility and the developer’s responsibility, and would there be assurance that projects would not be built without improvements.
Mr. Bond said he was not sure who would be responsible but that it could not be completed without improvements by the City.
Commissioner Blaser inquired about raising Highway 24/40.
Mr. Bond replied that yes, certain sections of Highway 24/40 would have to be raised.
Commissioner Harris inquired about two comments from the public concerned about organism growing in the soil.
Mr. Bond said he could not comment on that matter because it was not his expertise.
Commissioner Harris asked if drainage and retention were expected to be different in those areas.
Mr. Bond stated the flow would be different but the drainage and retention should stay the same
Commissioner Harkins asked if this was an ideal site or a site that could be made to work.
Mr. Bond stated that the site had merit to implement some of the North Lawrence Drainage Study recommendations.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked for a projection of when phase B would start.
Mr. Herndon stated that phase B could not be started until infrastructure was extended northward, hopefully in about 7 years. Significant industrial component was needed to support commercial uses.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked what the intended use would be until development.
Mr. Herndon said that agricultural uses would remain until the buildings were developed.
Mr. Santaularia agreed that the land would remain the same until development.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that the land was irregular shaped and was there any way to also annex pockets of land.
Mr. Herndon stated that in systematic successive annexations it was difficult to make clean lines. They could look at the highway 24/40 corridor for cleaning up lines for a specific purpose.
Commissioner Moore asked Mr. Herndon to speak about the involvement with neighbors during the process.
Mr. Herndon said they have talked with the
North Lawrence Association, Grant Township Board, KU Endowment Association, Kaw
Valley Drainage District, KDOT, KTA, Airport Advisory Board, and FAA.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the area of land set aside was enough for Airport expansions.
Mr. Santaularia said that there were no intentions for the Airport to expand south. Expansions for the Airport would be to the north and east.
PUBLIC HEARING
Gentleman who did not state his name or sign in, wanted a grocery store in North Lawrence. He was opposed to the project and felt that taxes would be increased.
Joan Golden, Chair of Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, stated that in January 2007 the Chamber introduced a vision to make Lawrence the best to live in. They wanted to encourage robust and sustainable economics. She went on to say that available land needed to be part of infrastructure for economic development. During the first half of 2007, the Chamber of Commerce had about 32 prospective businesses approach them, but lost many of the businesses due to lack of buildings and land. The Chamber endorsed the Airport Business Park project.
Commissioner Harkins asked for a specific example of a business that Lawrence lost that would have worked on at the Airport Business Park site.
Ms. Golden stated that Hills Pet Nutrition was looking for 80-100 acres but Lawrence did not have anything usable and ready.
Mr. Herndon stated that they start with subdividing smaller lots that could be combined.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the site could have been made suitable for Hills Pet.
Mr. Herndon replied, absolutely.
Mr. Santaularia said they intend to build a speck building for businesses who might want to come to Lawrence.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if ECO2 was supported by the Chamber of Commerce.
Ms. Golden replied, yes. The Chamber supported the ECO2 concepts.
Commissioner Harris asked if there were existing 120,000 s.f. buildings vacant and available in Lawrence now.
Mr. Santaularia replied, no.
Chet Fitch, trustee of Grant Township, stated that the township opposed the annexation and rezoning. He had not seen this kind of uproar in a township since the closing of the grant township school. He felt that an elected body should listen. The complaints were not the typical “not in my backyard” complaints. The township was also concerned about drainage issues and did not think that public funds should be used in flood prone areas. He stated that Lawrence must compete with other cities to remain vibrant but felt there were better places to build an industrial park. The township was also concerned about increased use of infrastructure and Grant Township roads.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if Grant Township supported a moratorium on any building or were they just opposed to industrial buildings.
Mr. Fitch stated that building north of Mud Creek was fine, but between the creek and river was not a good location.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if a commercial project came along would Grant Township object to it because of the drainage issues.
Mr. Fitch replied, possibly. He stated that with the Industrial Park the water was being pushed from North Lawrence onto township roads.
Commissioner Harris asked if the zoning IL district would allow some commercial and if there were limits on how much of that land could be commercial.
Mr. Patterson replied that commercial uses were restricted to only part of the request.
Nancy Thellman, Citizens for Responsible Planning, were opposed to the project. She stated that people were interested in the project because concerns existed. Problems with the project were significant, such as changing the character of the neighborhood and environmental derogation. She went on to say that private developers asking for public money to build something in the floodplain was not right.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if CRP would oppose development of existing commercial property.
Ms. Thellman said that CRP would approve growth in North Lawrence on I-59.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if they would object to a residential subdivision.
Ms. Thellman said that a residential subdivision so close to the floodplain would be a bad idea. It was good farmland because the land holds water.
Commissioner Harris asked Ms. Thellman to talk about the levee effect.
Ms. Thellman stated that Matt Bond did not seem absolutely sure about what he said. She felt that adding a building inside a bowl protected by levee’s all around did not make sense if there was an option not to do it.
Rick Bryant, Chair of Airport Advisory Board, stated that the airport land was flat and confined by boundaries. In about 5 years they would like to extend the main airport runway to the south so the runway protection zone would move farther south. The last extension of the runway included mitigation of wetlands. If there were more run off to the east, there would be concern about attracting birds near the runway.
Mr. Ron Schneider, attorney on behalf of Citizens for Responsible Planning, provided letter to request a continuance considering the fiscal impact to the City. He suggested the annexation be heard first and then wait for proper publication for it to become within the City. He felt there was lack of adequate information for consideration and questioned the concurrent consideration of the rezoning with annexation. He thought that the annexation should stand or fail on its own merits. He felt that the Commission had no authority to hear the rezoning until the land had been annexed. He went on to say that the applicant’s aerial image did not show existing homes. He commended Staff but felt that Staff avoided or misunderstood in analyzing the components. He felt that the City should not have to finance the project. He also discussed the transportation costs in raising the roads and questioned why make improvements now and then tear out for future raisings. He felt that the impact of the neighborhood had been ignored. He said that the developer stated they do not have tenants for the site yet. He referenced H2020 and said that it was a massive project so it should be relied on. He read the mission statement from H2020 and cited the Growth Management Policy.
He stated that developers should pay for the project to the extent that was reasonable and the residents of the community should not be burdened. He felt that Staff had omitted the cost of the project in the Staff Report. He felt that there was not an adequate evaluation of the North Lawrence Drainage Study and wanted to see improvements of roads and hydraulic structures and emergency vehicle access during flooding. He referenced the New Orleans levee failing and felt that relying on a levee and pump station was not the best thing to do.
He referred to Chapter 6 (page 3.2) which requires an impact analysis. He felt that if the project was so good the developer should not have to have the City pay for it.
He asked that the annexation be denied for lack of analysis and felt that the applicant wanted to annex the property to have the City pay for the project. He said the rezoning application Golden Rules were not exhaustive. He went on to say that the character of the neighborhood was being altered and that the Staff Report misses great issues. He requested that Planning Commission wait to have fiscal numbers before voting on the issue.
Mr. Schneider did not think that the project compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and that the requirements for fiscal analysis had not been met.
He said that the Watershed Study states that no building should go there until absolutely certain that there will be no harm.
Julie Mitchell, lives in the floodplain area, and was concerned that this project would raise flood insurance rates for Lawrence.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Staff if the FEMA score would be raised.
Mr. McCullough replied that if the adopted regulations are not enforced then there might be repercussions to flood insurance.
Lane Williams, 1735 E 1500 Road, stated that his home was not shown on the aerial photo that was shown during the developers presentation. He stated that the developer proposes an amendment to H2020 and that is a substantial change. He felt the public should have an opportunity to express feelings about the community center being eliminated. He disagreed that Hills Pet Nutrition would have been a good fit for the proposed area. He felt the area would not be suitable for a large lot development. He was concerned about the impact to the neighborhood. He wanted Staff to present more detail about water runoff.
Wakefield Dort, KU professor, compiler of Kansas River channel changes. He was concerned about big floods and what could happen. He showed a map from the US Geological Survey that showed the extent of the 1951 flood. In 1951 the Airport was completely underwater after the flood and the 1888 flood might have been worse. He stated that reservoirs could not be counted on because of silting.
Commissioner Harkins said that it seemed Mr. Dort was discounting the effectiveness of the dikes that had been added since 1951; they were designed to silt.
Mr. Dort said he wanted to consider the possibility of what could happen.
Mary Ann Stewart, 511 Lake, stated she was a licensed engineer and felt the project was a financial shortage. The land is flat and slow-slopped and every square inch built increased her risk of flooding. She felt the floodplain boundaries were based on old data. She was concerned about the true cost of development in flood prone areas and about increasing vacancy and blight. She felt the only defense of flooding was good planning. She was opposed to the project.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked Ms. Stewart if she would support a moratorium of building in North Lawrence.
Ms. Stewart said she was cautious about building in flood areas and felt the cost to the community was great.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked Ms. Stewart if she thought 40 million of public money should be spent to implement the North Lawrence Drainage Study or used to buy up all of the homes in North Lawrence.
Ms. Stewart said she would not be opposed to the concept of the city buying up all of the homes in North Lawrence. She said that conditions have changed drastically due to building on fill in the last 20 years.
Carey Maynard-Moody, said that good planning needs to take into consideration the changing environment. Flooding happens more frequently because the planet is hotter. She stated the North Lawrence Drainage Study was modest. She referenced floodplain information submitted to the City in 1969 which states that the levee will eventually fail. She also referenced a memo from a former Lawrence Stormwater Engineer that stated that the public will bear the cost of recovery from flooding and good planning was based on the changing times.
Natalya Lowther, concerned land owner, was opposed to the project. She showed an updated aerial view of her farm. She wanted to see more managing of the flow of water in a long term non engineering approach. She said that the project would impact her ability to remain outside of the City. If the property is annexed she will lose agricultural rights. She showed photos of various flood events.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked Staff to address the issue of farmland after annexation.
Mr. McCullough said that the Development Code allows agricultural uses to continue.
Jana Dobbs, was in favor of the project and said the plan was consistent with H2020. She felt it would expand the tax base and developing community.
Charles NovoGradac, owns Chestnut Orchard near proposed project. He stated he was proud to own 20 acres of good farm land and was opposed to the project. He thought it would be more economical to retain land as agricultural rather than spend money on more infrastructure.
Norman Leary, lives on 1479 Road, his grandfather Pine owned 40 acres south of the Airport. He supported the Pine family development plans. He felt that Lawrence should have land available for interested businesses.
Ted Boyle, President of the North Lawrence Improvement Association, number one concern was flooding. He stated that North Lawrence never had a stormwater problem until 15 years ago when developers bought up vacant properties, which diverted water onto their neighbors. He wanted a guarantee that the development would not cause damage due to water. His second concern was traffic. He would like to see a traffic study done from the turnpike to Lyon & North Street. Another concern was money spent by the City.
Michael Almon, submitted letter about protecting farmland from sprawl. He stated that prior to 1993 flood the attitude was to diminish a severe flooding event. In 1961 levee’s were built to address issues of flooding in the already urbanized area of North Lawrence. After 1993, FEMA changed practices to give incentives for building outside of the floodplain. He said if the City annexes then it has to have 2’ freeboard, which might lead to additional land that may fall into floodplain. He felt that if Highway 24/40 became a levee it might get worse. Wondered if it would jeopardize flood insurance. He discussed Policy #12176 Interlocal Agreement, a City/County policy to safeguard prime agriculture land and limit uses designated as floodplain to agriculture uses and open space. Any moratorium should be the same policy as the Wakarusa River. He felt that because they had a levee it did not mean they should build.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if the 2’ freeboard had been accounted for.
Mr. Bond stated that it was addressed on the map he showed earlier in the IL-FP areas.
Bruce McKee, felt that property owners would be negatively impacted. His property would be surrounded on all sides by the development. If the proposed buildings are built they will be within 15’ from his house.
Margaret Sheek, concerned about water and agriculture. Lives on 1900 Road, lived through floods in 1935, 1951, 1993. She was also concerned because this was prime agriculture land. She stated that more industry could be made but agricultural land could not be made.
Pat Ross, 1616 N 1700 Road, farms in the area. Stated the airport was built on prime farm ground but it has been good for the community. No site would be perfect, but he believed the site deserved approval based on it’s proximity to the turnpike, highway, and airport. He felt it would serve the greater good of Lawrence.
Alison Myers-Arenti was concerned about taxes. He stated that North Lawrence had the highest taxes but the poorest people living there. Empty buildings sit in North Lawrence already that could be used. He felt that flood insurance would be increased if the project is built.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Tim Herndon, clarified that the project would not be in the floodplain. The traffic study was comprehensive, the study has been reviewed. The fiscal impacts of the project are reasonable and necessary as it relates to economic vibrance. Traffic improvements, roadway improvements, etc. would all progress concurrently as the development progresses.
Commissioner Harkins asked which staff comments the developer did not like.
Mr. Herndon stated the conditions on the Preliminary Plat that he was concerned about were 1a and 1b.
Jane Eldredge, stated the annexation conforms with H2020. The Airport is a facility that is a City service. The Comprehensive Plan intends for industrial development. Chapter 6 page 6.14 identifies commercial centers. Chapter 7, one of the goals is to provide 20,000 new jobs by the year 2020. The development would be consistent with appropriate policies. Industrial property is to be in the UGA. She said that the Plat conditions 1A-1F are not a typical Planning Commission decision. She would like City Commission to deal with those sets of conditions. She also stated that there was nothing inappropriate about hearing annexations at the same time as rezoning.
Commissioner Harris said that Planning Commission does have a responsibility to measure request against fiscal impact.
Ms. Eldredge said that the Comprehensive Plan was a document that Planning Commission and City Commission both use.
Commissioner Harris asked for an example of when public money was used on a project.
Ms. Eldredge replied she did not know of an example.
Commissioner Harris said that this project cannot happen unless the infrastructure is improved.
Commissioner Harkins asked if utilities would be extended across property not owned by the City and would a cost be allocated to people in the pathway.
Mr. McCullough stated that analysis is still on-going. The proposed new condition on the plat would address some of that. The difficulty lies in trying to decipher what infrastructure costs that can be directed at this project versus projects slated to exist in the future that would happen eventually without new development. That is why costs are not available yet. That information should be reviewed by City Commission.
Commissioner Harkins stated that cost issues seemed to be a City Commission issue that the City Manager would work with the developer on.
Mr. McCullough said that looking at the impact of the use and fiscal responsibility lies with City Commission.
Ms. Eldredge said that the Pines family had already had about 30 acres of their property taken for various public improvements. All of these things are indications of industrial development to come. She stated that the annexation should be effective with the rezonings, not prior.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that generally most of the Preliminary Plats have included public infrastructure improvements. He wondered if the Planning Commission should discount the North Lawrence Drainage Study in their decision.
Mr. McCullough said he did not feel they should discard it because it was an important tool.
Commissioner Harris inquired about the affect of stormwater direction and impact on existing wells.
Mr. Bond said it could affect ground water but that was not his expertise.
Commissioner Blaser inquired about the 100 flood and dikes done on a watershed basis. They are not finite enough to deal with localized areas.
Mr. Bond showed map of representation of scenario levee breech. The proposed land was out of the floodplain.
Commissioner Harkins was concerned about making a decision tonight with the Planning Commission having 3 members absent. The final decision could be made by 2 people. He did not know what the urgency of the project was but it could wait so that they might be able to make an informed decision.
Ms. Eldredge said that the applicant would not have an objection to that.
Commissioner Eichhorn said the 3 commissioners who were not present may not know what was going on, even if they were to read the minutes.
Commissioner Harris agreed with Commissioner Eichhorn that testimony tonight was greater detail then what would be seen in the minutes.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the Interlocal Agreement that Mr. Almon mentioned was still in effect.
Mr. McCullough said he was not sure.
Commissioner Harris asked what kind of uses would be in the facility.
Mr. Herndon replied there would likely be a warehouse facility. The temporary storage of goods would be a part of the business park. This project would be a much higher guarantee or promotion of bringing higher paying jobs to Lawrence. The types of businesses were speculative at this point. The commercial component about having a grocery was important to the people in North Lawrence but it was not likely that a grocery store would work very well in that area. What would work would be banks, gas stations, sit down restaurants, fast food, etc. Manufacturing and light manufacturing would also be a target.
Mr. Santaularia said they would be building a facility for Pioneer Seed.
Commissioner Harris was confused about where commercial aspects of the project would be.
Mr. Herndon drew a map showing where each use would be on site. IL includes commercial uses.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Moore heard a lot of good discussions. Access to good roads, railroad, and Airport all point to industrial uses. He understand the floodplain concerns. And he understood the finances but agreed that it was a City Commission decision.
Commissioner Harkins stated that when he first came on to the Planning Commission one of the strongest criticisms was that Planning Commission did not know the rules. He felt the Commission should make a strong effort to make rules clear and stand by them. He said he was not personally comfortable with this project because although it was not technically in the floodplain, it was flood vulnerable. He felt an opportunity was missed to look south near the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility for a Business Park. He also felt that they would be losing prime farm land but that the developer met all of the rules. He had mixed feelings about the project and he did not agree with some of the aspects of it.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the Interlocal Agreement was of concern.
Commissioner Harkins said it is of concern and he would like to see it as evidence. He suggested waiting on voting.
Commissioner Blaser understood the need for new business but he was concerned about North Lawrence flood control issues. He was also concerned about localized rain effects with dikes. He was not comfortable with a flat area trying to direct water and was very uncomfortable with this being built in this area.
Commissioner Harkins said that if that was the case then they would need to change H2020 so that they do not double talk.
Commissioner Finkeldei agreed that flooding was a prime issue. He fully supported the City Commission coming up with a way to fund the North Lawrence Drainage Study. He wondered if there was a 14” rain would the rezoning affect current residences. He said that flooding was a problem in North Lawrence so any building there would exacerbates flooding. He said they should have a moratorium on building in North Lawrence. He was also concerned about the fiscal impact and said that many individuals do not want the project to be supported by City funds but want public money spent on the North Lawrence Drainage Study. He agreed with Commissioner Harkins that plans support industrial growth near the Airport. He stated most of downtown Lawrence was on prime farmland and some of the people who spoke tonight live on prime farmland. He said that if the project failed there would be farming going on on that property. If it did not fail then there would be a successful business. That would help fund the North Lawrence Drain Study and help the community as a whole.
Commissioner Blaser stated that if streets and infrastructure were in place then the land could not be farmed.
Commissioner Finkeldei thought that the streets would not go in during the first phase.
Mr. McCullough agreed that technically the streets would not go in during the first phase.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that ECO2 was designed to help bring forward the offset of development in these types of areas for public funds. He asked if the City was spending money to bring their project forward was there any design for ECO2 to come forward and be a part of it.
Mr. McCullough said that they are actively lending staff support to the next plan of ECO2.
Commissioner Harris agreed with Commissioner Blaser about concerns with flooding in the area. She also agreed with Commissioner Harkins about following the rules. In reading the Comprehensive Plan she saw several different plans for that intersection. She would like to see an area plan be implemented for that area.
Commissioner Harkins said they should not punish developers for the city having inadequate plans. The other alternative would be housing and he would never approve housing next to the Airport.
Commissioner Eichhorn was concerned about the fiscal decision by the City. The City would have 3 weeks to come up with appropriate monetary decision.
Mr. McCullough said that should be part of the discussion at City Commission.
Commissioner Harris asked if the City could not come up with a reasonable financial situation would they deny the project.
Mr. McCullough said that no building permits would be issued until an agreement was reached.
Commissioner Harris said she did not think she could approve an annexation not knowing if the City could afford the project.
Commissioner Harkins said they have a set of rules to follow, and whether or not they like the project is not how they make decisions. If the rules are wrong then they need to change the rules. He felt obligated to proceed with approval of the project.
ACTION TAKEN FOR ITEM 16A
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to approve the requested annexation of approximately 144 acres located at E 1500 and US Hwy. 24/40 and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings found in the body of the staff report, and subject to the following condition:
1. The City of Lawrence, via fees collected by the developer, will need to compensate Rural Water District #13 of Jefferson County for Rural Water District facilities within the annexed area prior to publication of the annexation ordinance.
Motion carried 5-2, with Commissioners Chaney, Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, and Moore, voting in favor. Commissioners Blaser and Harris voted in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in opposition.
ACTION TAKEN FOR ITEM 16B
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Blaser, to approve the rezoning of approximately 99.31 acres from A and B-2 District to IL (with use restrictions) 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 conditions:
1. Initiation by the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission of a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to remove the Neighborhood Commercial Center designation for the N. 7th Street and US 24/40 intersection.
2. Filing of a Final Plat at the Register of Deeds’ Office.
3. Inclusion in the zoning ordinance of the applicant’s proposed restrictions of uses: Fast Order Food; Fast Order Food, with Drive-In; Restaurant, Quality; Food & Beverage; Mixed Media Store; Personal Convenience; Repair Service, Consumer; and Retail Sales, General.
Motion carried 6-1, with Commissioners Blaser, Chaney, Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, and Moore voting in favor. Commissioner Harris voted in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in opposition.
ACTION TAKEN FOR ITEM 16C
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to approve the rezoning of approximately 43.48 acres from A and B-2 District to IL 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 conditions:
1. Initiation by the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission of a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to remove the Neighborhood Commercial Center designation for the N. 7th Street and US 24/40 intersection.
2. Filing of a Final Plat at the Register of Deeds’ Office.
Motion carried 6-1, with Commissioners Blaser, Chaney, Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, and Moore voting in favor. Commissioner Harris voted in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in opposition.
ACTION TAKEN FOR ITEM 16D
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to approve the rezoning of approximately 26.22 acres from A and B-2 District to IL-FP District and forwarding a recommendation of approval to the City Commission, based on the findings of fact outlined in the staff report.
Motion carried 6-1, with Commissioners Blaser, Chaney, Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, and Moore voting in favor. Commissioner Harris voted in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in opposition.
ACTION TAKEN FOR ITEM 16E
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to approve the Preliminary Plat (PP-06-07-07) of Airport Business Park No. 1, and forwarding a recommendation of approval to the City Commission, with the following revised conditions:
(condition(s) deleted are struck
thru, condition(s) added are underlined).
1. Revision of the Preliminary Plat to reflect the following conditions:
a. Addition of a note stating that a Transfer of Ownership to the City of Lawrence for the pump station properties will be executed before the first final plat is recorded.
b. Removal of the utility easements encompassing the entirety of the pump station sites, as ownership of the pump station sites will be transferred to the City. Additional utility easements may need to be dedicated for the sanitary sewer mains with the final siting of pump stations.
c.
Revision of the pump station sites to appropriate sizes. The sizes of these
sites may need to be slightly altered at a later date prior to
final plat recordation based on the layout of the pump stations.
d.
Addition of a note stating that ownership
of the property on which the temporary pump station is located will
revert to the adjacent property owners when the pump station is decommissioned.
e.
Addition of a note stating that funds will be placed in escrow after the
approval of the final plat for the future decommissioning and modification of
the temporary pump station, and that no building permits will be issued
until the funds are in escrow.
f. As the access waiver requests for direct access to US 24/40 were denied, the first sentence of General Note #9 will need to be revised to read as follows: “Direct driveway access onto US Hwy. 24/40 is prohibited. Access onto US Hwy. 24/40 from Lot 1, Block Two shall be re-evaluated at the time of site planning. Direct driveway access onto E 1500 Rd., between US Hwy. 24/40 and Bluegrass Dr. shall be prohibited. Direct driveway access onto E 1500 Rd. from Lot 1, Block Four shall be permitted until such time as Bluegrass Drive is constructed. Subsequent to constructing Bluegrass Drive, the access onto E 1500 Rd. from Lot 1, Block Four shall be relocated to Bluegrass Drive.” Hatch marks shall be shown along the entirety of US 24/40 within the project boundaries and along E 1500 Rd., between US Hwy. 24/40 and Bluegrass Drive.
g.
Inclusion of a note stating that one temporary access point for the temporary
sanitary sewer pump station will be permitted from Block Five, Lot 1 to E 1500 RD. (N. 7th Street). Access to the pump
station shall be relocated to Pine Family Drive through the lot adjacent to the
pump station property that is first to develop. If the location
of the access point is known, it shall be shown on the plat, with hatch marks
included along the remainder of the west side of N. 7th Street.
h. Block Five, Lots 2 and 4 will be reoriented so they both have frontage on proposed Pine Family Drive.
i.
Inclusion of a note stating that access from Block Four, Lot 1 will be offset
125 feet from the centerline of Pine Family Drive. If the locations of the
access points are known, they shall be shown on the plat, with hatch marks included
along the remainder of the northern lot line.
j.
Dedication of any additional required Right-of-Way, per the approval of the
City Engineer.
k. i. Revision of Note #15 in the General Notes
section to state that the pedestrian ways within pedestrian easements are to
be constructed concurrent with the paving of the most adjacent roadway shall
be constructed per the subdivision regulations Section 20-811(C)(v).
l. j. Inclusion of information regarding final
plat phasing. This phasing shall be concurrent with phasing of the Downstream
Sanitary Sewer Study.
m.
Revision to include the airspace overlay zones as described in the Development
Code Section 20-302.
n. k. Removal of General Note #16e.
o. l. Revision of General Note #16f to remove the
following language: “Timing of the installation of such improvements will be
per the discretion of the property owner(s) [in the instance of private
financing] and per the City [in the instance of public financing]. General
Notes #16a through f may need to be further revised, based on the outcome of
discussions related to financing of infrastructure improvements at the City
Commission meeting.
p. Dedication of the full
right-of-way for E 1500 (N. 7th Street) and US 24/40. Properties
that are not part of the associated annexation and subject Preliminary Plat
applications will need to be annexed as part of this r-o-w dedication.
m. Prior to a building permit being granted for any building associated with Phase A1, an agreement shall be reached between the City and property owner/applicant as to the provision, timing, and financing of all road, water, sewer, and storm water infrastructure for the project.
Motion carried 6-1, with Commissioners Blaser, Chaney, Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harkins, and Moore voting in favor. Commissioner Harris voted in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in opposition.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated he would like ECO2 as part of the negotiations with the City.
PC Minutes 10/24/07
ITEM NO. 17: RM12D TO RS7 & OS; 4.28 ACRES; OREGON TRAIL (MKM)
Z-09-18-07: RM12D (Multi-Dwelling Residential) & RS7 (Single-Dwelling Residential) to OS (Open Space); 4.28 acres; Oregon Trail Addition (Initiated by Planning Commission on 8/29/07)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Mary Miller presented the item.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to approve the rezoning of approximately 4.28 acres from RS7 (Single-dwelling Residential) and RM12D (Multi-dwelling Residential) Districts to OS (Open Space 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.
Unanimously approved 7-0, with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in favor.
PC Minutes 10/24/07
ITEM NO. 18: A TO GPI; 9.656 ACRES; 851 N FOLKS RD (MKM)
Z-09-19-07: A (Agriculture) to GPI (General Public and Institutional); 9.656 acres; Pump Station 48; 851 N Folks Rd (Initiated by Planning Commission on 8/29/07)
Item 18 deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 10/24/07
ITEM NO. 19: IL TO OS; 5.792 ACRES; MARY’S LAKE ADDITION (MKM)
Z-09-20-07: IL (Limited Industrial) to OS (Open Space); 5.792 acres; Mary’s Lake Addition, Tract A (Initiated by Planning Commission on 8/29/07)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Mary Miler presented the item.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to approve the rezoning of approximately 5.792 acres from IL (Limited Industrial) District to OS (Open Space) 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.
Unanimously approved 7-0, with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in favor.
PC Minutes 10/24/07
ITEM NO. 20A: IG TO OS; 1.80 ACRES; 900 E 15TH ST (MJL)
Z-09-21A-07: IG (General Industrial) to OS (Open Space); 1.80 acres; 900 E 15th Street (Initiated by Planning Commission on 8/29/07)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Michelle Leininger presented the item.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to approve the rezoning of approximately 1.80 acres from IG District to OS District and forwarding a recommendation for approval to the City Commission based on the findings in the body of the staff report.
Unanimously approved 7-0, with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in favor.
PC Minutes 10/24/07
ITEM NO. 20B: IG TO GPI; 1.13 ACRES; 900 E 15TH ST (MJL)
Z-09-21B-07: IG (General Industrial) to GPI (General Public and Institutional); 1.13 acres; 900 E 15th Street. (Initiated by Planning Commission on 8/29/07)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Michelle Leininger presented the item.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Blaser, to approve the rezoning of approximately 1.13 acres from IG District to GPI District and forwarding a recommendation for approval to the City Commission based on the findings in the body of the staff report.
Unanimously approved 7-0, with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in favor.
PC Minutes 10/24/07
ITEM NO. 21: RSO TO RMO; 3.3 ACRES; SE & SW CORNERS OF ELDRIDGE ST & W 6TH ST (PGP)
Z-09-22-07: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 3.3 acres, from RSO (Single-Dwelling Residential-Office) District to RMO (Multiple-Dwelling Residential-Office) District. The properties contain the Summer Tree Apartments and are located at the southeast and southwest corners of Eldridge Street and W. 6th Street (U.S. Highway 40). Submitted by Allen Belot Architect for Summer Tree Townhouses, LLC, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Paul Patterson presented the item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Allen Belot, applicant, was present for questioning.
Commissioner Harris asked if the change in zoning would change the density.
Sheila replied, yes.
Commissioner Harris stated that normally she would take issue with the change in density, however this was along 6th Street.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Blaser, to approve the proposed rezoning of 3.3 acres from RSO (Single-Dwelling Residential-Office) District to RMO (Multi-Dwelling Residential) District and forwarding to the City Commission a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact as found in the body of the staff report.
Unanimously approved 7-0, with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in favor.
PC Minutes 10/24/07
ITEM NO. 22: ENDORSE TE GRANT FOR BURROUGHS CREEK TRAIL PROJECT (AG)
Endorse City of Lawrence Transportation Enhancement (TE) Grant Application for the Burroughs Creek Trail project.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Anson Gock presented the item. The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) is soliciting applications for projects for funding to begin in October 2008 (FFY 2009/2010) for the federal-aid Transportation Enhancement Program.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to approve the submittal of the City of Lawrence Transportation Enhancement grant application to KDOT and authorize the Chairman to sign a letter of support to accompany the grant applications. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) at their October 4, 2007 meeting also recommended the MPO submit the Burroughs Creek Rail Trail TE application to KDOT for FY 2009
Unanimously approved 7-0, with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in favor.
PC Minutes 10/24/07
ITEM NO. 23: 2008 UPWP (AG)
Conduct a public hearing to consider adoption of the 2008 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), a federally-required program that describes the work that will be done in the upcoming year on transportation-related planning tasks; the current status of transportation planning activities; and an outline of funding sources to accomplish these transportation planning tasks. Copies of the FY 08 UPWP will be available at the Lawrence Public Library, in the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Office, first floor City Hall, and at www.lawrenceplanning.org.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Anson Gock presented the item.
Commissioner Harkins expressed issues with the transportation plan and in the last 5 years nothing was done and now there is mad rush to get something in. He felt the MPO should have a policy of an interim process, not just something that is slapped together when it is due.
Commissioner Finkeldei said it was added into the by-laws to review it every 2 years.
Commissioner Harris inquired about creating a pedestrian advisory committee.
Ms. Stogsdill said that the topic had been added to the City Manager project list.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to approve the 2008 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and transmittal to the Kansas Department of Transportation. Staff also recommended that the Planning Director or designee be authorized to execute necessary planning grant agreements and planning process certifications with KDOT. TAC recommends that the MPO to consider the approval of the 2008 UPWP at its meeting.
Unanimously approved 7-0, with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in favor.
PC Minutes 10/24/07
Consideration of any other business to come before the Commission.
Commissioner Harkins stated City Commission should include the 32nd Street alignment in the T2030 plan.
Commissioner Finkeldei said they could receive public comment and then it have it come back.
Commissioner Harris was pleased that they were modeling different scenarios.
Commissioner Harris said a North Lawrence Area Plan should be looked at.
Mr. McCullough said that Chet Fitch went to the County Commission for them to initiate that. The County Commission denied the request because they did not want that plan to interfere with the Airport Business Park as industrial use. But they did agree that it needed to be done.
Commissioner Harris was concerned about how to approach the subject of preserving farmland and she wanted to see it explored in an appropriate way.
Commissioner Harkins asked if there was a rule about not developing in the floodplain.
Mr. McCullough replied, no.
ADJOURN 12:40pm