PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 25 & 27, 2008
Meeting Minutes
______________________________________________________________________
February 25, 2008 –
6:30 p.m.
Commissioners
present: Blaser, Carter, Chaney,
Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harris, Hird, Lawson, and Moore
Staff present:
McCullough, Stogsdill, Day, J. Miller, M. Miller, Moore, Boecker, and Brown
______________________________________________________________________
MINUTES
Discussion regarding January 28 & 30, 2008 draft minutes -
Motioned by Commissioner Hird, seconded by
Commissioner Harris, to approve the minutes of the January 28 & 30, 2008
meeting.
Motion carried, 9-0-1 with Commissioner
Blaser abstaining.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner
Hird said that Gateways & Boulevards Committee met and need direction from
the Planning Commission on what the committee should focus on since the subject
matter is broad. Commissioner Eichhorn suggested that the Planning Commissioners
send Commissioner Hird their suggestions via email.
Commissioner
Moore said the Industrial Committee had their inaugural meting and briefly went
over locational and criterial criteria for selecting industrial sites.
Commissioner
Finkeldei said that TAC did not meet this month since transportation items were
held over from the January Planning Commission meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
Mr.
EX PARTE /
ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte.
· Abstentions:
Commissioner Chaney abstained from Item 6.
PC Minutes 2/25/08
ITEM NO. 1
FDP-12-20-07: Revised Final
Development Plan for the relocation of the postal center for
Item
1 deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 2/25/08
ITEM NO. 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
PP-12-10-07: Preliminary Plat for
Lower East Side Addition, located at 927 &
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Matt
Jones, representing Robert & Molly Krause, said that if the existing house
was demolished they could meet the lot width for all three lots. He also stated
that historically there have been 3 homes on this property and the variance would permit them to
preserve the existing character. He
requested that the variance be granted because the destruction of historical
heritage would be a hardship
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Harris felt
that this was a good example of infill development.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner
Harris, seconded by Commissioner Moore to approve the variance request from Section 20-809(d)(2)
which requires that each lot resulting from the division will conform with the
minimum lot size and other dimensional requirements applicable to the property
through the Zoning District Regulations found in Section 20-601(a).
The variance would permit the following variations
from the dimensional requirements of Section 20-601(a) for the RS5 Zoning
District:
1) lot frontage/lot width of 37.44 ft. for Lots
1 and 2 rather than the 40 ft. required in the RS5 Zoning District; and
2) lot area of 4,384 sq. ft. and 4,379 sq. ft.
for Lots 1 and 2 respectively rather than 5,000 sq. ft. required in the RS5
Zoning District.
Approval of the Preliminary Plat of The Lower East
Side Addition subject to the following conditions:
1)
Revision of the
preliminary plat with the following changes:
a
The property
owners, Robert and Molly Krause must be listed on the Plat as ‘Owners’ and Matt
Jones should be listed separately as ‘Developer’.
b
The note
regarding the variance being requested should be revised to read as follows:
c
“Variance
requested from Section 20-809(d)(2) which requires that each lot conform with
the dimensional requirements applicable to the property through the Zoning
District Regulations found in Section 20-601(a), specifically the minimum lot
frontage/lot width and minimum lot area requirements.
d
The revised
Preliminary Plat must list the revision date.
2)
An Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for
future street and sidewalk improvements to
3) Review and approval by the Historic
Resources Commission.
Unanimously approved 9-0.
PC Minutes 2/25/08
ITEM NO. 3 12TH & OREAD TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Consideration of the 12th and
Oread Tax Increment Financing District Redevelopment Plan to consider
consistency with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms.
Ms.
Commissioner Moore asked
how this piece relates to what City Commission has already approved.
Ms. Boecker stated that
the Redevelopment Plan is separate from land use decisions. State law outlines
that this plan be acted upon by Planning Commission and comply with the intent
of Horizon 2020.
Ms. Boecker stated that
on February 12, 2008 the City Commission started the comment period for the
County and school district for a proposed tax increment financing district
request. The developer filed a petition with the city clerk to develop a
transportation development district. The public improvements for the Oread
project will be financed through transportation development district, a 1 cent
sales tax assessed on sales within the facility, and an increment in tax
increase for the property as well as the sales tax. The public and private
improvements are estimated to be 11 million dollars eligible to be reimbursed
through the TIF (Tax Increment Financing) and the TDD (Transportation Development
District). The school district and county have 30 days to object to the creation
of the development district. The Board
of County Commissioners will review a resolution that would allow the 1 cent
sales tax and financing for the TIF side. City Commission will hold a public
hearing on April 1st to consider the redevelopment plan.
Commissioner Lawson
asked if the 37 million dollar package total included the 11 million dollar
figure that Ms. Boecker mentioned.
Ms. Boecker said that
yes, the 11 million was included in the 37 million dollar figure. 5 million for
public improvements such as streets, sidewalks, etc, and 6 million for
underground parking.
Commissioner Lawson
stated that the projections suggest that the developer will get back 6 million
of the 11 million in reimbursement.
Ms. Boecker said that it
is estimated that approximately 6 million dollars in revenue would be generated
over a 20 year period of the tax increment financing tool. The feasibility study
presented to City Commission on February 12, 2008 related to the project
estimated sales and property taxes over 6 million. Developer estimates were
about 7.1 million dollars. As outlined at this time the redevelopment agreement
would provide for refunding back to the developer up to 7.1 million dollars for
recouping that increment.
Commissioner Lawson said
that the TDD was a small part of that.
Ms. Boecker said that
TDD was estimated at $920,000, so yes, it was a small part.
Commissioner Lawson asked
if the 1% additional sales tax would be county wide.
Ms. Boecker replied no,
the 1% sales tax created through the transportation development district would only
be assessed at The Oread.
Commissioner Lawson
asked where else in the city a TIF is used.
Ms. Boecker replied the
Commissioner Eichhorn
asked if it was working well.
Mr. McCullough said sales
tax is needed to generate revenue. The method for this project is unique because
it is a pay as you go deal. The developer will pay up front and will be repaid
as sales tax are generated. The infrastructure will need to be in place before
the occupancy of the hotel is allowed. The city will get all the improvements
before the hotel will be operational.
Commissioner Eichhorn
asked why other properties were included besides the hotel site.
Ms. Day said the
additional properties are owned by the applicant and the city water tower property
will receive landscaping so that is why they were included.
Commissioner Eichhorn
asked if the additional properties were subject to sales tax if they were to
redevelop in some other way.
Ms. Boecker stated that if
there was a future sales tax in those areas it would require a petition to
create an additional transportation development district.
Commissioner Harris
asked if the parking facility would be private or open to the public.
Ms. Boecker said it
would be private parking operated through the hotel.
Commissioner Harris
asked Ms. Day what parts of the staff report they should focus on.
Ms. Day said that they should
determine if the redevelopment project plan is consistent with the intent of
the City’s general comprehensive plan, Horizon 2020.
Commissioner Harris said
that some of the information in the staff report was not very detailed.
Ms. Day said the design
detail will be seen by Planning Commission as part of the Final Development Plan
stage.
Mr. McCullough said they
could give their comments about public improvements. He described the improvements
that are part of the project, such as realignment of
Commissioner Finkeldei
said the other time that they made a similar finding was related to the Capital
Improvement Plan. He looked up that statute. It said with the comprehensive plan
they were supposed to determine if the CIP “conforms with the comprehensive
plan.” With the Oread project they are asked to find if it is consistent with
the “intent of the plan.” So the Planning Commission does not have to determine
if it “conforms” only if it is “consistent with the intent.” He said it seemed
like a much lower standard.
Mr. Matt Gough, Barber
Emerson attorney on behalf of the developer, agreed with Commissioner Finkeldei;
that it was a lower standard. The Planning Commission is asked to look at the
improvements not the financing mechanisms of the project. In that sense it is a
formality built into the statute. It is a two step process and it is between
stages one and two. The blueprint for the project is the redevelopment plan and
it is the Planning Commission’s charge to determine if it is consistent with
the intent of the comprehensive plan.
Commissioner Eichhorn
commented on design by saying that in the staff report it says that this
project is removing a dilapidated apartment complex. He would like that same
term used with any other complexes in the area in the similar situation to
allow a blight policy. He would like other buildings in the area that are in
similar dilapidated states to do something about their building.
Mr. McCullough said that
inspectors from Development Services evaluated existing buildings to determine
if they were in poor condition.
Mr.
Commissioner Eichhorn
said that former Planning Commissioner Joe Harkins had asked the applicant if
they were asking for public money. Commissioner Eichhorn was concerned about
not seeing projects entirely upfront. He asked Paul Werner to comment on this.
Mr. Werner said that
they had not applied for the TIF at that time and he did not know that they
were going to apply for one. He wished they had started the TIF project
earlier. He said the applicant is providing financing upfront and using the TIF
to reimburse those expenses.
Commissioner Lawson
agreed with Commissioner Eichhorn’s comments. He said the Planning Commission
was previously enthusiastic to the plan because the developer was willing to
finance the public improvements.
Mr. Werner stated that
all the public improvements have to be complete or the developer does not get
to open the hotel.
Commissioner Hird stated
he has been involved in two TIF projects outside of
Commissioner Harris
asked Mr. Werner what percentage of the project overall was for improvements.
Mr. Werner replied that
5.3 million for public improvement. They hope that 6-7% will be reimbursable.
Commissioner Harris
asked how the valet parking would work. She also voiced concern about delivery
vehicles having to back out onto
Mr. Werner said that
they looked at that but they did not have enough space. He also said that the
valet parkers would figure it out. He also stated that they hope trucks will be
backing down the east side and pull out straight onto
Commissioner Harris was
concerned about cars turning left out of parking garage.
Mr. Werner said there was
some benefit to valet parking because the drivers will know the intersection
since they will be used to it. He said the real intersection that handles cars
is 11th &
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner
Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Hird, to
find that the proposed redevelopment project, 12th & Oread Tax
Increment Financing District Redevelopment Project Plan, is consistent with the
intent of the City’s general comprehensive plan, Horizon 2020, for the development of the City and forward this
finding to the City Commission as per K.S.A. 12-1772.
Commissioner Harris agreed
that the plan in general was in conformance with the goals of the area. She was
still concerned about traffic.
Unanimously approved 9-0.
PC Minutes 2/25/08
ITEM NO. 4 RSO TO RM15; 15.171 ACRES;
Z-10-26-07: A request to rezone a tract of land
approximately 15.171 acres from RSO (Single-Dwelling Residential-Office) to
RM15 (Multi-Dwelling Residential). The property
is located at
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Tim Stultz was present
for questioning.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Moore, seconded by
Commissioner Carter to approve the rezoning request [Z-10-26-07] for 15.171
from RSO (Single-Dwelling Residential-Office) to RM15 (Multi-Dwelling
Residential)and forwarding it to the
Unanimously approved 9-0.
PC
Minutes 2/25/08
ITEM NO. 5 SPECIAL USE PERMT FOR 714
SUP-12-10-07: Special Use
Permit for a cabinet shop which is “Limited Manufacturing & Production
Business” at 714
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Paul Werner, Paul
Werner Architects, agreed with the staff report conditions.
Commissioner Lawson
inquired about the note on the plan regarding the discharge of water that is
used for cleaning.
Mr. Werner said it was a
standard note and that there are environmentally safe people that now clean
some of the outside dining areas on
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Finkeldei
asked if the cabinet shop had been in operation for a while.
Ms. Miller said she believed
that it was for a short time but not currently.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by
Commissioner Chaney to approve
SUP-12-10-07, a Special Use Permit for the addition of a granite shop, a
limited manufacturing and production use, to the property at 714 Vermont and forwarding it to the
1.
Provision of a
revised Site Plan with the following changes:
a
The following
general note must be added: “Per City Code Section 9-902, the outdoor dining
area will be managed to prevent stormwater pollution. Food waste, trash,
cigarettes, and other solid wastes will be collected and disposed of properly.
Fluid waste, including wastewater from pavement or furniture cleaning, will be
collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer system.”
b
The sidewalk
dining area must be shown and labeled on the plan.
c
Note 1.3 under
‘Project Summary’ must be revised to reference that the CD (not the C-3) Zoning
District is exempt from the off-street parking requirement.
d
Project Summary
notes 1.2 and 1.3 for current and proposed uses must be revised to change
‘office’ to ‘tattoo parlor or tattoo shop’ and to include ‘parking garage’.
e
The following
note must be added to the plan:
“The granite shop is subject to the following conditions: Employment may
not exceed 20 employees, no outside storage of materials or products is
permitted, and If goods are displayed or sold on-site, this must be a
subordinate part of total sales.”
2.
The property is
located within the environs of properties listed on the National and Lawrence
Registers of Historic Places and is also located in the Downtown Conservation
Overlay District. The change of use must be approved by the Historic Resource
Commission before the SUP Ordinance is considered by the
3.
An Agreement Not
to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for Street Light Improvements
must be executed before the Special Use Permit Site Plan is released for
building permits.
4.
A photometric
plan must be provided and approved prior to the installation of any exterior
lighting when exterior lighting is proposed.
Unanimously
approved 9-0.
PC
Minutes 2/25/08
ITEM NO. 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NORTH FORTY FARMS; 1768 E 1100 ROAD (SLD)
CUP-12-11-07: Conditional Use Permit for North Forty
Farms, located at 1768 East 1100 Road.
Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for North Forty LC, property owner
of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr.
Commissioner Eichhorn
said he would personally like to proceed with the staff presentation.
Ms.
·
Subject property contains an existing building for storage per a
previous approved CUP-08-09-02 with a 5 year time limit.
·
The subject property has been associated with multiple complaints over
that period.
·
The use has failed to comply with conditions of the original CUP for
use as a truck/equipment storage facility.
·
Applicant has had only minimum contact with
·
The revised site plan proposes the use of the building for “uncrating
appliances and cutting carpet.”
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Paul Werner, Paul
Werner Architects, agreed with Mr. McCullough that it was not fair for a member
of the public to attend Planning Commission and then the item be deferred. He
was not aware of the multiple complaints that the staff report mentions and
asked for a copy of the complaints. All he had was a copy of the certified
letter from Keith Dabney regarding violations.
Mr. Keith Dabney, Director
of County Zoning & Codes, said that they first cited the property owner in November
2001 and then a 2nd notice in December 2001. He did receive a letter
back from Mark Anderson that they were going to resolve the issues and seek a
CUP. They were cited March 2002 by the state for illegal dumping. He showed
photographs of storage of furniture and various building material. The building
was constructed without a permit. He said the complaints have been consistent.
He and Ms. Day visited the site today and noticed material in the special
hazard flood district.
Commissioner Moore asked
for clarification that the violations in 2001 resulted in a CUP being issued.
Mr. Dabney said that was
correct.
Commissioner Moore asked
what remedy the County has to address issues.
Mr. Dabney said they
have a significant problem with this CUP and it was their recommendation to
deny the renewal of the CUP. They have sent violation letters to the property
owner. He stated that the process to remedy CUP’s was not as straight forward
as a simple violation. The courts usually want them to try to resolve.
Commissioner Lawson said
that the 2001 notice made reference to statutes and sanctions. He asked if
those were still available with a CUP.
Mr. Dabney said that
they are still available and that typically there is some sort of settlement.
Commissioner Blaser
asked if CUP’s could be revoked.
Mr. Dabney said it
usually has some sort of condition that allows it to be revoked and they are
reviewed on a 5 year basis.
Mr. McCullough said that
typically if CUP’s are not operating under the use established or a specific
condition then they have the ability to begin revocation proceedings. Usually
that requires some due process with the applicant to give them the opportunity
to correct the violations. If the violations cannot be corrected then it would
go through a process that would include Planning Commission recommendations to
the Board of County Commission.
Commissioner Moore stated
that Mr. Werner should get a copy of the violation letters.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Rick Whitson, neighbor, has
called in a few complaints about traffic. He was concerned about traffic safety
due to narrow roads and blind driveways. He said he had a picture of a truck
jack-knifed.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Werner stated that
the property owner said his attorney told him he could use the building for a
two week period to cut carpet and unpack appliances. He said the city just
built a lift station across from the property so it’s possible some of the
truck traffic was from that project. He felt they could use better language on the
CUP that could define if it’s being used wrong.
Commissioner Carter inquired
how violation letters cannot be addressed.
Mr. Werner was
frustrated that information had not been provided about the violations.
Mr. Whitson, felt that
the only good way for a truck to get to the site was thru a round about or
Peterson & Monterey Way. He stated that stuff was dumped there and burned
creating a sizeable fire.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Hird asked
if the CUP was for a truck storage facility. He said that the traffic issues
would have applied if it would have been a truck storage facility.
Ms. Day said that the
intention was for smaller pickup trucks, not large semi trucks, to be at the
facility. She said that the conditions of the CUP put a weight limit on the
trucks.
Commissioner Hird felt
that the issue was not the use of the CUP, but rather its numerous violations
of the permit that needed to be enforced.
Mr. Dabney stated that
the CUP expired yesterday. He said that they could have enforced and shut the operation
down but that he tries to work with people to reach a happy medium. He stated
that no burning was one of the conditions and that some of the conditions were
not followed. They failed to comply with the previous CUP conditions so
approving this one would not be beneficial.
Commissioner Hird asked
if the occupant had complied with the conditions they would not be discussing
it right now.
Mr. Dabney said that was
correct.
Commissioner Hird asked
if enforcement was part of them not following the conditions.
Mr. Dabney said that not
renewing the CUP is a way of enforcement.
Commissioner Finkeldei
agreed with Commissioner Hird and said that he suspected revoking a CUP would
be like revoking a rezoning which was not easy to do. He also said that the CUP
should live up to conditions and that is one of the reasons a CUP has renewal
periods. He felt that if they are not in compliance then they should not be
granted another CUP.
Commissioner Hird felt
that the County should aggressively enforce CUP’s that are not in compliance.
Commissioner Moore
agreed with Commissioners Hird and Finkeldei but felt that the County was
limited in being able to enforce. He did not think that the CUP applicant was
being a good neighbor.
Commissioner Hird
clarified that he was not picking on Keith Dabney and appreciated his efforts
regarding the issue.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Moore, seconded by
Commissioner Lawson, to deny the Conditional Use Permit CUP-12-11-07 for a
truck storage facility and forwarding it to the
Motion carried 8-0-1 for
denial with Commissioner Chaney abstaining.
PC
Minutes 2/25/08
ITEM NO. 7A MINIMUM
MAINTENANCE; N 1 ROAD (DCM)
MM-12-03A-07: Request to designate minimum maintenance road status
for a portion of N 1 Road within
Item
7A deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 2/25/08
ITEM NO. 7B MINIMUM
MAINTENANCE; E 200 ROAD (DCM)
MM-12-03B-07: Request to designate minimum maintenance road status
for a portion of E 200 Road within
Item 7B deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 2/25/08
ITEM NO. 7C MINIMUM
MAINTENANCE; E 600 ROAD (DCM)
MM-12-03C-07: Request to designate minimum maintenance road status
for a portion of E 600 Road within
Item 7C deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 2/25/08
ITEM NO. 7D MINIMUM
MAINTENANCE; E 650 ROAD (DCM)
MM-12-03D-07: Request to designate minimum maintenance road status
for a portion of E 650 Road within
Item
7D deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 2/25/08
ITEM NO. 8 TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (DCM)
Receive and approve the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Policy. The policy describes the TIP development process, methods in
amending the TIP, and defining what a “regionally significant” project shall
consist of.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Davonna Moore presented
the item.
Commissioner Harris
inquired about a minor versus major change and asked who decides what is controversial.
Ms. Moore said that
wording should have been taken out of the staff report. TAC decided to remove
it.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by
Unanimously approved 9-0.
PC
Minutes 2/25/08
MISCELLANEOUS NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
Ms. Stogsdill asked for feedback on letters
regarding Wednesday night agenda items. She stated that if they wanted to defer
a Wednesday agenda item that it could be put back on the March PC legal notice.
If not, then it would get deferred to April PC.
Consideration of any other business to come before the Commission.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Recess at 8:35pm until 6:30pm on February 27, 2008.
PC Minutes 2/27/08
_______________________________________________________________________
Reconvene February 27, 2008 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Blaser,
Chaney, Eichhorn, Finkeldei, Harris, Hird, and Moore.
Staff present: McCullough, Stogsdill, Day,
Leininger, J. Miller, Rexwinkle, Warner, and Brown
_______________________________________________________________________
BEGIN PUBLIC
HEARING (FEBRUARY 27, 2008):
COMMUNICATIONS
·
No Communications
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS /
DEFERRAL REQUEST
·
Ex parte:
Commissioner Hird
had a phone conversation with Duane Schwada regarding Item 14. Commissioners
Eichhorn and Blaser had brief phone conversations with Jane Eldredge.
·
No abstentions
PC
Minutes 2/27/08
ITEM
NO. 9 CPA-2007-8 (MJL)
CPA-2007-8: Amend Horizon 2020
Chapter 6, Commercial Land Use, to update the identified
ITEM
NO. 10 CPA-2007-9 (MJL)
CPA-2007-9: Amend
Horizon 2020 Chapter 6, Commercial Land Use, to identify a
ITEM
NO. 11 CPA-2007-10 (MJL)
CPA-2007-10: Amend Horizon 2020
Chapter 6, Commercial Land Use, to remove the
STAFF
PRESENTATION
Ms.
Commissioner Hird asked what input was
received from the community regarding the change in location of the commercial
center.
Ms. Leininger said there was little public input.
Commissioner Hird asked what the
factors were in deciding the location.
Ms. Leininger said that the factors were
topography, land use, future thoroughfares and logical location within the area
to allow for transitions.
Commissioner Hird asked if the surrounding
land owners in the area had been advised.
Ms. Leininger said the neighbors were given notice
about the Southeast Area Plan.
Commissioner Finkeldei said the
neighbors who live in the area were excited that the commercial center being
moved away from their homes.
PUBLIC
HEARING
Mr. Bob Lichtwardt wanted to be sure that
the road included by error was removed from map 6.1.
Mr. McCullough stated that the road that had been
included on the map in error had been removed.
ACTION TAKEN
ON ITEM 9
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by
Commissioner Moore, to approve the amendments to Horizon 2020, Chapter 6 – Commercial Land Use.
Unanimously approved 7-0.
ACTION TAKEN
ON ITEM 10
Motioned
by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to approve the
amendments to Horizon 2020, Chapter 6
– Commercial Land Use.
Unanimously approved 7-0.
ACTION TAKEN
ON ITEM 11
Motioned
by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Blaser, to approve the
amendments to Horizon 2020, Chapter 6
– Commercial Land Use.
Unanimously approved 7-0.
Motioned
by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to authorize the
chair to sign PC Resolution 2008-03 regarding these amendments.
Unanimously approved 7-0.
Motioned
by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to initiate the
change to the Southeast Area Plan to correct designation from CC400 to CC200.
Unanimously approved 7-0.
PC Minutes 2/27/08
ITEM
NO. 12 CPA-2007-2 (DDW)
CPA-2007-2: Consider amending
Horizon 2020 to ensure proper comprehensive plan language is in place for a
proposed Mixed Use District in the City of
ITEM
NO. 13 AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20,
DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-04-05-07: Consider amendments to
Chapter 20, Development Code to create a Mixed Use Zoning District. Initiated by the Planning Commission on
STAFF
PRESENTATION
Mr.
Commissioner Hird asked why transit stops had to
have shelters.
Mr. Rexwinkle said that the Transit System creates
a map and it needs to be represented on the map. The definitions are tied to
the Lawrence T Routes Map.
Commissioner Hird said he thought the point was to
place mixed use development centers where there is access to bus shelters and
asked what happens if a developer builds a mix use development and wants to put
in a bus shelter.
Mr. Rexwinkle said that the developer should talk
to the Transit Department if they want to put a bus shelter.
Commissioner Harris asked how to show zones if
only working with one lot or building.
Mr. Rexwinkle said that if it is just one piece of
property they can show the zones across the property.
Commissioner Harris suggested using the word
‘route’ instead of ‘stop’ regarding transit.
Commissioner Hird said that the financial
viability of the transit changes annually. He liked the suggestion of changing
the word to ‘route.’
Mr. McCullough said these would be decisions in
the public process and would be elements of judgment that the City Commission
and Planning Commission will have to make.
Commissioner Finkeldei inquired about a market
study.
Mr. Rexwinkle said the scale of mixed-use
districts could not compete with downtown because of the size.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked how to analyze the
viability of downtown.
Ms. Stogsdill said that the Commission tabled many
months ago a CPA to that very section because the Development Code language is
not the same as Horizon 2020 language.
Commissioner Harris inquired about page 13-4 (item
13) where it mentions that a development bonus can be transferred to another
site.
Mr. Rexwinkle said that if a developer can earn
points in other zones within the same development.
Commissioner Harris said that the plan talks about
mixed use being allowed within ¼ mile from downtown. She asked how the edge of
downtown was defined.
Mr. Rexwinkle said it was based on the downtown
boundary district CD.
Commissioner Harris asked if drive-thrus would be
allowed in the mixed-use development.
Mr. Rexwinkle said no, it was not permitted.
Commissioner Harris asked if brew pubs were
allowed.
Mr. Rexwinkle replied yes.
Commissioner Harris had concerns about that and
said that should only be allowed by special permit.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if an application
would have to spell out the intended uses.
Mr. Rexwinkle said yes at the Site Plan phase and
that the applicant should consider what uses are permitted before rezoning.
Commissioner Harris said that currently a
mixed-use development can put in a brew pub no matter the size. She felt that
if the development is in a residential area that a special permit would be
helpful.
Commissioner Moore agreed with Commissioner Harris.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked for the definition of
brew pub.
Ms. Stogsdill directed him to page 17-22 of the
Land Development Code.
Commissioner Finkeldei read the definition of brew
pub out loud.
PUBLIC
HEARING
Ms. Betty Lichtwardt, League of Women Voters,
spoke regarding the letter they sent. She was concerned about the randomness of
this district. She said the fact that it can be as large as 20 acres indicates
that it also might be utilized in new areas. She stated that is was essential to
have a preplanned neighborhood with pedestrian routes identified first. She
questioned the separation of site plans from the rezoning process because the
site plan is not reviewed by Planning Commission. She felt that the decision would
then depend on the judgment on relatively few people. She was concerned about
the location of commercial uses not being distributed where people need them. She
said that initially when the early Comprehensive Plan was adopted the idea was to
tailor the needs to the size of the district so that the smallest districts
were designed for neighborhoods and included food stores, service uses, and small
businesses. She said that the whole purpose of the mixed use district is to
support pedestrian use.
She felt that they needed to reduce reliance on
automobiles.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked how this zoning
district did not help what they are emphasizing.
Ms. Lichtwardt said that that it does not restrict
uses and that businesses should have value to the neighborhood. She said that
the site plan needs to be with the zoning.
Commissioner Eichhorn felt that the use table
spoke to those types of things.
Ms. Lichtwardt said that explosives storage should
require a Special Use Permit in the IG district.
Ms. Jane Eldredge, Barber Emerson,
representing the Jayhawk Bookstore in regards to the mixed-use planning. She
gave history of Jayhawk Bookstore. She said that the bookstore has always been
non-conforming and has had problems with lenders and insurance. She said that
this problem was compounded by the Development Code automatic rezoning. She
stated that the Jayhawk Bookstore is in the RMG district and if it burned down it
could not accommodate a fraternity or sorority because of the small lot size. She
stated that the owner is trying to rezone for conformity and that the MU
district does not quite work. She went on to say that some residents are
concerned about the location being turned into a bar but the Mr. Muggy has no
intention of opening a bar at that location. As part of the zoning staff
report, she suggested striking requirements of MU District for major
Development projects. She suggested alternate language of existing mixed uses
prior to MU.
Mr. McCullough said that a new code provides new
standards. There is an entire article for non conforming uses. He stated that
this is not a unique situation for the MU district and that lots of sites that
do not conform to standards and the code allows for a few options such as
variance or rezoning. He disagreed that the Code should have specific language.
Mr. Michael Almon, lives in
Commissioner Harris asked why Mr. Almon did not
want to see open space adjacent to parks.
Mr. Almon said he did not want a developer to not
dedicate open space on their site and claim an adjacent park was the open
space.
Ms. Lichtwardt said that she thought Mr. Almon was
probably referring to a comment that the League of Women Voters made. If high
density is near natural areas it can be problematic to maintain so they need to
choose park space wisely.
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Harris suggested several changes:
Change ‘and’ to ‘or.’
Change ‘transit stop’ to
‘transit route.’
Require a brew pub to have
a Special Use Permit.
Document should specify
boundaries of downtown as defined by Horizon 2020.
Mr. Rexwinkle said that they could reference boundaries
of downtown as being defined in Horizon 2020, Chapter 6.
Commissioner Finkeldei agreed with the suggested
changes.
Commissioner Hird recognized that a lot of hard
work and time has gone into this. Some of the comments about the Jayhawk
Bookstore lead him to be of the opinion that they should not take action on
this tonight. He wanted to see further communication on the ideas and a clearer
draft of what is being done. He suggested deferring the item.
Commissioner Eichhorn agreed and was okay with this
being deferred.
Mr. McCullough said that the four changes
suggested were fairly minor.
Commissioner Eichhorn agreed with Mr. McCullough
and said that they should identify areas that might be mixed use.
Commissioner Harris wondered if there are existing
mixed use sites in
Commissioner Finkeldei said there is nothing in
town that is zoned mixed use and will not be until a rezoning.
Ms. Eldredge said that there are places in town
that are not legal in any way. She said that Jayhawk Bookstore is a legal
non-conforming use.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that Mr. Muggy would
still need to apply for rezoning.
Commissioner Hird said he would feel better about
approving this if he knew who it was impacting.
Commissioner Moore said that whether it impacts
them or not is up to them coming forward and rezoning their property.
Commissioner Finkeldei said there are certainly uses
in downtown with mixed-use and those people would not have to come forward and
be rezoned because they are already using it that way.
Commissioner Moore said he was comfortable with
the changes and they seem fairly minor.
Commissioner Hird would rather vote on the items
armed with more information. Identifying those areas where mixed use might
apply might present an opportunity. He was in favor of mixed use zoning and
felt it was a positive step. He wanted to know what areas of town could fit
into this and identifying those might stimulate development and infill development.
Mr. McCullough said they might need to look at any
use that wants to redevelop to see how close the standards are addressed.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked what would be the
benefit of someone taking 80 acres and coming in with four 20 acre MU zonings.
Mr. McCullough said that those would have to be
looked at as they are applied for.
Commissioner Harris asked Staff to speak about open
space issues.
Mr. McCullough said that a number of important
elements such as transit, moderately priced housing, and open space are all
included in the district for bonus points.
Mr. Rexwinkle said that other requirements of the
Code still apply but that the bonus table just grants bonuses for features that
are not required.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if there is an
application waiting on this being adopted.
Mr. McCullough said that the Jayhawk Bookstore is.
Commissioner Finkeldei said he was generally
supportive of the Bookstore being able to use this district and felt that other
like uses could benefit from this. He was not sure that the solution should be
to grandfather in non-conforming uses.
ACTION TAKEN
ON ITEM 12
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by
Commissioner Hird, to defer until the April Planning Commission meeting to
allow time for a better understanding of the implementations.
Motion carried 5-2 with
Commissioners Chaney and Moore voting in opposition.
ACTION TAKEN
ON ITEM 13
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by
Commissioner Hird, to defer until the April Planning Commission meeting to
allow time for a better understanding of the implementations.
Motion carried 5-2 with
Commissioners Chaney and Moore voting in opposition.
PC Minutes 2/27/08
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
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
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
PUBLIC
HEARING
Ms. 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
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
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.
PC Minutes 2/27/08
ITEM
NO. 15 AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20,
DEVELOPMENT CODE
TA-12-25-07:
Consider amendments to various sections of Chapter 20 Development Code related
to the definition of family in RS Districts. Initiated by Planning Commission
on
STAFF
PRESENTATION
Ms.
PUBLIC
HEARING
No public comment.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by
Commissioner Harris, to approve the
proposed revisions [TA-12-25-07] to Section 20-202 of the Development Code, and
forward to the City Commission.
Commissioner Hird asked if domestic registry had any
impact on this.
Mr.
Unanimously approved
7-0.
PC Minutes 2/27/08
ITEM
NO. 16 AMENDMENT TO COMMISSION’S BY-LAWS (SDM)
Amend Planning Commission By-Laws to reflect revised
process of meeting format.
STAFF
PRESENTATION
Ms.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if in Section 8 on abstentions
there was a way to put language in there that you may not know that you need to
abstain until certain conversations come up during the meeting.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that conflict of
interest is a defined term. He said he has often abstained from items that he
perceived to be a conflict of interest. He said the section almost reads to say
that if a person walks out that they have a conflict of interest.
Commissioner Moore encouraged keeping the Monday
date for communications from the public.
PUBLIC
HEARING
Carrie Lindsey, League of Women Voters, said that their
organization meets on Saturdays and would like to have until Monday to submit
their comments. She felt that public participation should be encouraged.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei,
seconded by Commissioner Chaney, to approve the adoption of the by-law
revisions noted in the staff report, with a change in section 8 “during an item
for which a member has declared an abstention that member shall physically
leave the meeting room,” to codify the temporary procedures the Planning
Commission began using with the launch of the PC web-based agenda packet in
January 2008, and keeping the deadline for ‘Written Comments from the Public’ as
Monday at 10:00am.
Unanimously approved 7-0.
PC Minutes 2/27/08
ITEM
NO. 17 CPA-2007-6 (MJL)
CPA-2007-6: Amend Horizon 2020 by creating Chapter 15 – Place
Making to ensure proper comprehensive plan language is in place for the
proposed Lawrence SmartCode in the City of
ITEM
NO. 18 CPA-2007-7 (DDW)
CPA-2007-7: Amend Horizon 2020, Chapter 14 Specific Plans, to
add a reference to the Lawrence SmartCode Infill Plan.
ITEM
NO. 19 ADOPTION OF THE
ADOPTION OF
THE
TA-11-24-07:
Pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. Chapter 12, Article 7, consider making a
recommendation on the adoption of “Lawrence SmartCode” enacting a new Chapter
21 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, establishing comprehensive
zoning regulations and other land use regulations. The “Lawrence SmartCode” is
an optional development code that is parallel to the City’s existing zoning and
subdivision regulations and affects all property within the corporate limits of
the City of Lawrence, Kansas. Copies of the “Lawrence SmartCode” are available
for review at the Office of the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Department,
City Hall,
STAFF
PRESENTATION
Ms.
Mr. Warner gave the history of the SmartCode.
Commissioner Harris asked how infill is defined.
Mr. Warner said that it is defined as anything
that is within the City right now, so not necessarily surrounded by development.
Commissioner Moore felt that infill meant existing
roads, structures, etc.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked how the bullseye map
lined up with the industrial map.
Mr. Warner said that it did not exactly line up.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if it would make sense
to match them up.
Mr. Warner said ideally they would want the whole
Horizon 2020 to make sense with the SmartCode but that is a bit of a project.
There are conflicted policies but ideally it should match as much as possible.
Commissioner Hird asked if there had been any
analysis of the plans on the downtown area.
Mr. Warner replied no, T5.5 zoning is not allowed.
PUBLIC
HEARING
Ms. Gwen Klingenberg, President of Lawrence
Association of Neighborhoods, mentioned other parts of the Development Code
such as neighborhood notice and sensitive lands. She did not want a CRC committee.
She would like to see more affordable housing. She stated that the SmartCode
conflicts with other codes and does not protect sensitive lands. She was
concerned about the loss of transparency and democratic process.
Mr. Kirk McClure, was
concerned that the SmartCode gives the fast track to a developer to get a
building permit. He felt that the SmartCode does not address the timing of
development and does not mandate mix of uses.
Betty Lichtwardt, League of Women Voters, stated that the Code
assumes that the market is going to create a response to the demand. She felt
that one of the basic problems within the community is piecemeal development. She
felt that the concept of integrated planning was missing from this and that one
of the principal things missing from planning system is structural planning.
Ms. Janna Dobbs, felt that the free market does work when
allowed to. She did not feel the city was overbuilt with industrial and office
space but are overbuilt with housing.
Mr. Michael Almon, thanked Gwen Klingenberg
for her work and agreed with her. He was against not having public input for
development. His main concern was peak oil. He said that the land use was going
to change, and that they can no longer think of single occupancy cars.
Commissioner Harris asked Mr. Almon about other
communities that have addressed peak oil.
Mr. Almon replied that he knew of
Commissioner Finkeldei asked Mr. Almon if he had seen
sample ordinances for allowing more wind turbines in city cores.
Mr. Almon said that height regulations, location,
and noise were concerns with wind turbines. Street access and lot orientation
were concerns with solar access.
Ms. Beth Johnson, Chamber of Commerce, was in favor of a
clear, fair process for developers.
Mr. Luke Bell, Lawrence Board of Realtors, supported the
SmartCode.
COMMISSION
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Finkeldei mentioned incorporating
incentives from the MU Code into the SmartCode and Development Code.
Commissioner Eichhorn was concerned about creating
a new board, CRC.
Mr. Warner said that the Code is very prescriptive
of what is required. It must either meet it or not. He stated that in some
respects it is not far from the current administrative process for Site Plans.
Commissioner Harris said there was real value in
having consistency in processes for the public and developers. She felt that folks
that live in the area should have the ability to comment on it.
Commissioner Eichhorn was concerned about planning
decisions being political and having City Commission be the final review.
Commissioner Harris asked staff to comment on lack
of design standards for developments.
Mr. Warner stated that the Code has very specific
form of standards that mandates such things as the minimum setbacks for
parking, alleys, frontage requirements, and building scale plans include
architecture.
Commissioner Harris asked about building materials
in Commercial Design Standards.
Mr. Warner said that the Design Guidelines do not
have much regarding materials.
Commissioner Eichhorn suggested having bigger
public notice signs being posted at the sites.
Commissioner Harris felt that a market analysis
should be conducted.
Mr. McCullough stated that staff does not conduct
market studies, but does review the market studies.
Commissioner Eichhorn felt that consistency of
maps in different documents should be matched up as much as possible.
Ms. Leininger stated that Horizon 2020 is aimed
toward Development from the past 20 years and the map was based on that type of
development. She agreed that the maps should coincide as much as possible but
that there will naturally be a disconnect between the two maps.
Commissioner Finkeldei felt that the CRC board
should consist of either all Staff or all Planning Commissioners.
Commissioner Eichhorn felt they should put the
right people on the board.
NO ACTION
TAKEN FOR ITEMS 17, 18, AND 19
PC Minutes 2/27/08
MISCELLANEOUS NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
Consideration of any other business to come before the Commission.
Commissioner Harris said that
they needed volunteers for the Planning Commission orientation committee.
Commissioners Harris, Hird,
and Finkeldei said they would serve on the committee.
PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION
ADJOURN 11:30pm