PC Minutes 2/27/08  DRAFT

ITEM NO. 14      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. Initiated by Planning Commission on July 25, 2007.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Joe Rexwinkle presented the item.

 

Commissioner Hird inquired about the square footage of significant development projects.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle said that significant development projects are defined as:

(1) The construction of one or more new Buildings with a gross Floor Area of 1,500 square feet or more; (2) The construction of additions with a gross Floor Area of 1,500 square feet or more, or twenty percent (20%) or more, of the existing Building; (3) Separate incremental additions below the 1,500 square feet or 20% amount if the aggregate effect of such Development Activity over a period of 18 consecutive months would trigger the 1,500 square feet or 20% threshold; (4) The alteration or intensification of any use that increases off-Street Parking requirements pursuant to Article 9 or (5) The installation or addition of more than 1,500 square feet of impervious site cover. (Ord. 8098)

 

Commissioner Hird asked if most of the buildings in Industrial zoning presently are significantly large buildings.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle said not necessarily. There are smaller sites and smaller structures that are zoned IG and most of those were previously zoned M2, primarily in North Lawrence and east of Downtown along the old railroad tracks.

 

Commissioner Blaser asked if one of the original M2 sites was significantly changed would it have to go to the 50’ setback. He stated some of those lots were not more than 100’ deep.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle said the minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet in the IG and old M2 District so it was possible to have a narrow width and shallow depth lot.

 

Commissioner Blaser stated that if a property owner wanted to make a major change they would not be able to do it.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle said the property owner could submit for a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

 

Commissioner Harris asked if future development would need to meet a greater setback for industrial areas.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle said a significant development project would trigger a site plan review and at that point the applicant would have to become compliant with the IG setbacks and the grandfather clause would not apply. If they are expanding a small amount it would permit small minor exceptions that fall below what constitutes as a significant development project and they could build it to the former M2 setbacks, 25’ and 20’.

 

Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the parking lots might be up to the lot line.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle replied yes.

 

Commissioner Eichhorn stated that the parking lot would have to be reconfigured.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle stated yes if the applicant was doing a site plan. If they were just changing the use then reconfiguring the parking lot would probably not be necessary.

 

Commissioner Moore asked Mr. Rexwinkle to show a map with properties on it.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle showed maps of current non-conforming properties.

 

Commissioner Finkeldei asked if properties became non-conforming when they were automatically converted to IG.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle stated that some of the properties were already non-conforming as M2.

 

Commissioner Hird asked if a compromise had been considered.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle said the compromise was allowing the small expansion of up to 1,500 square feet. Staff felt that if the grandfather clause was allowed to apply to any development, however large or small, the structure would never come into compliance. He said that the distinction was the M3 and M4 district had similar setbacks to the IG district today, so the problem was lumping all three districts together to form the IG district. He stated that for some reason the M2 district always had lesser setbacks than the other industrial districts. When lumped together into a new zoning district all the previous M2 districts run the risk of being non-conforming.

 

Commissioner Harris asked about the percentage of industrial properties.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle said in terms of land area it was probably not a significant number. He said quite a few of the lots that were former M2 properties are smaller. There are a number of cases so it could affect more individual properties.

 

Commissioner Moore said those properties probably represent the majority of homegrown industrial uses in Lawrence.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

Jane Eldredge, Barber Emerson, said there were problems with lumping three zoning districts together.

She stated that the M2 district under the old zoning code was medium intensity. She said that there are only six M3 districts, one M4 district, and twenty-one M2 districts. She said that non-conforming was not good for businesses and felt the M2 district should be reinstated.

 

Commissioner Harris asked about not requiring conformance with new setbacks for major developments.

 

Ms. Eldredge said that it would basically accomplish the same thing and that leaving what is there alone was the goal. She said that the existing M2 will not encounter future difficulties with expansion.

 

Commissioner Blaser asked if parking was the only difference between M2 and IG districts.

 

Ms. Eldredge replied no, there are some other minor differences. One difference is the buffer yard landscaping is more dense.

 

Ms. Betty Lichtwardt, said the thinking of the original code was to simplify. She stated that the other two districts were created because they were too intensive to be lumped together, especially the M4 district. She felt that clumping all the industrial districts together was a bad idea and suggested that there should be a C4 district for obnoxious districts.

 

Ms. Beth Johnson, Chamber of Commerce, spoke regarding Commissioner Moore’s earlier comment about homegrown businesses. She was against anything that would make it difficult for businesses to expand and stay in Lawrence.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Finkeldei asked if the real change was in footnotes 14 and 15 to create the grandfather.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle replied that was correct.

 

Commissioner Finkeldei asked Ms. Eldredge if she wanted the second sentence of footnote 14 removed that says a 50’ setback would be required for any significant development project.

 

Ms. Eldredge said that would be half of it and the other half would be the portion that says when there is a significant development.

 

Commissioner Harris inquired about what possible negative impacts there would be for properties next to residencies.

 

Mr. McCullough said it was hard to know specific impacts. But the zoning code does still require the buffer yard screening.

 

Commissioner Harris asked if the second sentence of footnote 14 was removed would the buffer yard still be required.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle replied yes.

 

Commissioner Hird wanted to encourage expansion of local business so he was in favor of deleting the second sentence in the footnotes. He said it may be problematic for neighbors and that buffering is significant but the overriding factor is that they need to encourage business in Lawrence to stay and expand.

 

Commissioner Eichhorn asked if setbacks could be applied based on lot size.

 

Mr. McCullough said that they could craft it in ways to achieve goals but many of the lots are smaller than what we would be seen today.

 

Commissioner Hird said the only drawback was a need for simplicity in the code.

 

Commissioner Blaser said they should take out the second sentence of the footnotes and leave everything else.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Blaser, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to approve the proposed revisions [TA-07-14-07] to Section 20-601(b) of the Development Code, with the deletion of the 2nd sentence of footnotes, and forward to the City Commission.

 

Unanimously approved 7-0.