March 16, 2004
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:35 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Dunfield presiding and members Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner present.
With Commission approval Mayor Dunfield proclaimed the month of March to be “March for Meals Month.”
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of March 9, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the Public Health Board meeting minutes of January 26, 2004; the Smoking Task Force meeting minutes of February 2004; and the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of March 1, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 410 vendors in the amount of $889,391.05. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the drinking establishment licenses for Jack Flanigan’s Bar & Grill, 804 West 24th Street; J.B. Stouts, 721 Wakarusa Drive, Suite 100; The Jazzhaus, 926 ½ Massachusetts; and the Retail Liquor License for Glass House Liquor, 2301 Wakarusa Drive, Suite C. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and reappoint Anne Marvin to the Historic Resources Commission an at-large position for an additional term that will expire March 1, 2007 and appoint Sven Alstrom to the architect position which will expire March 1, 2007; and appoint David J. Hamby to the Traffic Safety Commission which will expire April 30, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission Deferred the site plan (SP-01-02-04) North Town Business Park for a 57,500 square foot warehouse building located on the west side of North 2nd Street north of Lyon Street. (1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for golf course maintenance and equipment lease for the Parks and Recreation Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT LEASE AMOUNT
Fairway mowers 2
Turf Equipment $56,960.00 $15,258.44
Vanwall Equipment $49,824.00 $13,473.41 - Did not meet specs
Turf Technology $63,320.00 $16,874.78
Utility vehicle with options
Turf Equipment $15,955.00 $4,274.03
Vanwall Equipment $15,248.00 $4,180.50
Turf Technology $13,177.70 $3,404.80
Utility vehicle w/o options
Turf Equipment No Bid No Bid
Vanwall Equipment
Turf Technology $12,742.00 $2,932.00
Contour wide area mower
Turf Equipment $12,995.00 $3,481.10
Vanwall Equipment $13,640.00 $3,904.18
Turf Technology No Bid No Bid
Core Harvester
Turf Equipment
Vanwall Equipment
Turf Technology $2,800
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to award the bids in bold that meet specifications, and authorize the City Manager to sign a lease-purchase agreement for five (5) pieces of golf course maintenance equipment for a total of $25,076.34 for four years; Additionally approve bid of a core harvester for $2,800, for a total expenditure in 2004 of $27,876.34 (Municipal Golf Course Fund). Motion carried unanimously.
(2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, approve the purchase from KCR International Trucks for one single axle dump truck off the MACPP cooperative bid in the amount of $58,996 ($30,000 from Equipment Reserve/$28,996 from Special Recreation Fund). Motion carried unanimously. (3)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for a Comprehensive Rehabilitation Project at 407 Elm Street for the Neighborhood Resources Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Harris Construction Services, Inc. $14,500
General Construction, Inc. $13,111
Old Home Depot, Inc. $11,535
Master Plan Management $11,945
Groene Brothers Construction, Inc. $22,500
Schmidt Construction, Inc. $19,444
Staff Estimate $9,500
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to Old Home Depot, Inc., in the amount of $11,535. Motion carried unanimously.
(4)
The City Commission reviewed the bids to replace the West Hills pump at the Kaw Water Treatment Plant fro the Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Layne Western $31,750
CAS Construction $38,790
BRB Contractors $50,600
Blaze Mechanical $61,555
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to Layne Western, in the amount of $31,750. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the dollar increase in CAS’s Construction contract for the Lime Residuals Project, in the amount of $13,127.18. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for one front load refuse truck for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
American Equipment, No. 4 $109,587
American Equipment, No. 5 $113,748
Roy Conley & Co., No. 1 $114,448
McNeilus Truck & Mfg. $119,224
Burnup Equipment, No. 1 $117,641
American Equipment, No. 1 $120,805
Burnup Equipment, Alternate, No. 2 $125,622
American Equipment, Alternate, No. 3 $128,243
American Equipment, Alternate, No. 2 $131,179
Key Equipment & Supply, Alternate $131,299
Key Equipment & Supply, No. 1 $132,999
Roy Conley & Co., No. 2 $133,739
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to American Equipment, in the amount of $120,805 and the extended warranty for $1,109 totaling $121,914. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for two rear load refuse trucks for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
American Equipment, No. 1 $188,012
American Equipment, No. 2 $191,096
Roy Conley & Co., No. 2 $193,652
Roy Conley & Co., No. 1 $197,102
Roy Conley & Co., No. 3 $198,192
Burnup Equipment, No. 2 $209,324
Burnup Equipment, No. 1 $216,812
Key Equipment & Supply No Bid
Corbin Equipment No Bid
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to Roy Conley & Co., No. 1, in the amount of $197,102 because American Equipment’s bids did not meet specifications and concerning Roy Conley & Co., No. 2 bid, based on past maintenance history, the Central Maintenance Garage recommended against Loadmaster packer when the cost difference was less than $10,000 per unit; and the extended warranties for $1,928 totaling $199,030. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for one mini rear load refuse truck for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
American Equipment, No. 4 $65,293.00
American Equipment, No. 2 $65,480.00
American Equipment, No. 3 $67,310.00
Roy Conley & Co., No. 2 $67,741.00
Roy Conley & Co., No. 1 $68,633.00
Burnup Equipment, No. 1 $68,873.97
American Equipment, No. 1 $69,535.00
Burnup Equipment, Alternate, No. 2 $72,039.97
McNeilus Truck & Mfg. $80,320.00
Key Equipment No Bid
Corbin Equipment No Bid
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to Roy Conley & Co., No. 2, in the amount of $67,741 because bids 4, 2, and 3 from American Equipment did not meet specifications. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
Ordinance No. 7752, rezoning (Z-12-51-03) 8.83 acres from M-1 (Research Industrial) and PID-1 (Planned Industrial Development District) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District), property located north of West 15th Street and east of Research Park Drive, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
Ordinance No. 7747, levying the maximum assessments to pay for the improvement of certain drainage and stormwater improvements, including the acquisition of certain property interests associated with the improvement on or near certain real property commonly known as Orchards Golf Course, generally located north of West 15th Street, east of Lawrence Avenue, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7759, designating Congressional Drive, between West 6th Street (U.S. Hwy 40) and Overland Drive, within the corporate limits of the city as a main trafficway pursuant to K.S.A. 12-685, et. seq. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7760, designating Overland Drive, between Wakarusa Drive and Queens Road, within the corporate limits of the city as a main trafficway pursuant to K.S.A. 12-685, et. seq. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-11-21-03) for Sedlock Addition, a replat of Lot 22 and vacated 11th Street in Western Hills Suburban Rancheros Subdivision, a two-lot residential subdivision containing approximately 1.09 acre, located at Wagon Wheel Road; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
a. Copy of paid property tax receipt;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Provision of a master street tree plan.
Motion carried unanimously. (14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-01-01-04) of approximately 8.761 acres from RS-1 (Single-Family Residential District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District). The property is generally described as being located east of Monterey Way and north of Stetson Drive; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-12-11-03) for Delaware Commons co-housing project, to be located east of Delaware Street, between East 12th and East 13th in which the applicant proposes to reduce the number of dwelling units and parking spaces within the project, providing 28 dwelling units on approximately three acres, subject to the following conditions:
Revise the Preliminary Development Plan to include the following items:
a. Lot dimensions on Final Plat, Delaware Commons Addition are not the same as dimensions shown on page C1.0, Revised Preliminary Site Development Plan. Revised page to show correct lot dimensions and revise all calculations (such as Impervious Surface Summary) to show corrected numbers;
b. Revise the impervious surface summary by lot (for all four lots);
c. Lot 1 has a 105’ west lot line dimension. Revise plan to show 100’ dimension;
d. Provide an open space calculation;
e. Show all parking stall lines/dimensions for proposed parking on Lots 1 and 2. As per Section 20-1205, one of these spaces must be accessible;
f. Show dimensions/existing lot lines for Lot 4;
g. Note on the PDP should indicate that the 40’ easement in the western portion of Lot 4 will be vacated;
h. Correct misspelled words found throughout the plan;
i. Show existing tree adjacent to southern lot line of Lot 2 on all submitted pages;
j. Add a note to the plan that calls for individual water meters to be set at the Delaware Street right-of-way line for service to each of the units with multiple service lines in a single trench provided to each building;
k. Revise plan to show the elimination of 15’ U/E west of proposed parking lot, Lot 3;
l. Add a note to the plan that identifies the addition of a 10’ U/E through the middle of the proposed parking lot (Lots 3 and 4) for sanitary sewer;
m. Provide a continuous evergreen screening hedge between the parking lot on Lot 1 and E. 12th Street;
n. Provide a continuous screening hedge on the west side of the driveway, Lot ¾;
o. Provide a continuous evergreen screening hedge between the parking lot on Lot 3/4 and E. 13th Street;
p. Provision of a note on the Preliminary Development Plan that states, “The project will remain compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of building massing, orientation, and architectural detail”;
q. Provision of a note on the Preliminary Development Plan that states, “Staff approval of street-facing building elevations, including building massing, orientation, and architectural detail is required prior to filing of the Final Development Plan”;
r. Execute an Agreement Not to Protest a Benefit District for street improvements on Delaware, 12th, and 13th Streets; and
s. Applicant must submit for Planning Staff approval a plan for fencing or landscape screening on the west side of the subject property from the entry drive off 13th Street and extending to the first six (6) parking spaces shown on the plan.
Motion carried unanimously. (16)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-01-01-04) a revised Preliminary Development Plan for Pine Ridge Plaza located at 3106 South Iowa Street and the applicant proposes removing the restriction of use to permit alcohol sales, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously. (17)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to receive the request for annexation of approximately 160 acres generally located south of Douglas County jail; and refer the annexation to the Planning Commission for recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. (18)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to deny the request to establish “no parking” along the east side of Crestline Drive between Clinton Parkway and 24th Terrace; and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to deny the request to establish a “multi-way stop” at the intersection of 3rd Street and Locust Street; and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for property located at 816 Connecticut. Motion carried unanimously. (21)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the recommendation of the Lawrence Sesquicentennial Commission and Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for the naming of Sesquicentennial Point, which will be located near Clinton Lake. Motion carried unanimously. (22)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
During the City Manager’s report Dave Corliss presented information on the Police Traffic Units impact on Municipal Court.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked Corliss to explain when the traffic unit started as that explanation was helpful to understand the traffic unit impact.
Corliss said the traffic unit started approximately mid-year of 2003. The number of citations was down from the previous year, but those numbers were not taking into account a full year of traffic citations. Significantly the number of moving violations, OUI’s, speeding, and red light running had dramatically increased with the traffic unit coming on board. He said operating under the influence and drunk driving was a labor intensive item for the prosecutors to adjudicate as opposed to some of the other citations the municipal court dealt with.
He said Municipal Court last year began working with a collection agency in collecting outstanding fines and working with that agency was good management practice. In addition, the Kansas Debtor Set-off Program was helpful in the collection of delinquent cases.
Corliss explained to the City Commission tickets by type, total tickets issued, and special citation monitoring.
He said the Legal Services Department did an inventory of staff needs and issues and the primary need was space. He said legal staff was formerly housed in about 900 square feet in the Judicial Law Enforcement Building, until legal staff was fortunate to move into the new Municipal Court Building on New Hampshire Street.
Lastly, he explained records retention and document storage to the City Commission. Corliss said in the past, Municipal Court Archives were stored at various off-site locations, but Municipal Court Clerk now utilized a computerized imaging system to scan and retrieve archived records.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he appreciated Vicki Stanwix, Court Administrator’s report. He asked about the State Debtor Set-off Program and if there was a long window for collecting delinquent dues.
Stanwix said staff had a long lag from April until December 2003. In January and February there had been a huge jump in collections because the state was re-pursuing the people from last year who did not comply.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the impact on employees and staff needs at Municipal Court.
Stanwix said the impact on staff was fine, but they had more issues with technology. She said the only area suffering was special projects, which was staff’s imaging system and staff’s inability to scan records more frequently into that system. (23)
REGULAR AGENDA
Consider proposal to move parking from the east side of Avalon Road to the west side, between 9th Street and Cambridge Road, in order to facilitate sidewalk snow removal
Chuck Soules, Director of Public Works, presented the staff report. He said the removal of parking on the east side of Avalon was brought during the time staff had the snow removal issues. He said the residents on the east side of Avalon had cleaned their sidewalks and City staff plowed those streets in that area and the snow ended back on their sidewalks. He said the Traffic Safety Commission vote was a 6-1 recommendation to move parking. One problem with switching the parking would be those vehicles would be parking facing uphill and those vehicles might find difficulty maneuvering in the snow.
Soules noted the Traffic Safety Commission recommended establishing no parking along both sides of the reverse curb approximately midway on Avalon Road which was a 6-1 vote.
Highberger asked if no parking along both sides of the reverse curb would be part of the City Commission’s motion.
Soules said yes.
Vice Mayor Rundle stated the reason this issue was on the regular agenda was because that vote was not a unanimous decision by the Traffic Safety Commission.
Soules said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any public input from the neighbors.
Soules said several residents had public input.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Highberger said the no parking issue was a good idea. He said in addition to keeping the snow plows from plowing snow onto the sidewalk, parking on the same side of the street as the sidewalk would help provide a buffer between the street traffic and the sidewalk.
Commissioner Hack agreed with Commission Highberger. She said when looking at parking and safety issues, those issues were compelling to approve the no parking.
Moved by Rundle , seconded by Schauner, to approve the recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission and place on first reading Ordinance No. 7758, moving parking from the east side of Avalon Road to the west side of 9th Street and Cambridge Road. Motion carried unanimously. (24)
Z-11-38-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 12.3 acres from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District to M-1 (Research Industrial) District. The property is generally described as being located on the northwest corner of Legends and Research Park Drive (extended)
Jeff Tully, Planner, presented the staff report. He said the City initiated this rezoning request in November of 2003 to apply a more appropriate transitional zoning classification for the subject tract which was on the perimeter of the M-1 Research Park District and the residential neighborhood which was located to the north and to the west.
The property owner, Alvamar Inc., had requested and was granted a deferral from the December 2003 Planning Commission meeting to allow time for discussion with the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association about rezoning. The property owner also requested deferral from the February 2004 Planning Commission meeting to allow for completion of what they believed would be an alternative development concept involving rezoning a more comprehensive area and providing a different type of transitional use between the single-family, multiple-family and industrial uses which were currently surrounding the subject parcel. The property owner did not feel rezoning the entire parcel to M-1 zoning which had been initiated by the City Commission would provide the appropriate transition buffering.
He said the item was heard by the Planning Commission at its February 25, 2004 meeting. At that meeting, a number of adjacent property residential property owners and members of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association spoke in support of the rezoning from the PCD-2 to the M-1. The Planning Commission subsequently voted 7-3 to recommend approval of the rezoning from the PCD-2 to M-1.
Mayor Dunfield called for public hearing.
Richard Downing, Lawrence, said he lived within the area proposed to be rezoned. He said when meeting with the people from Alvamar, their thoughts were unanimous in that the clean industry there today, those people from Alvamar preferred to see that clean industry as a buffer. He said a 60 foot gas buffer between the property and the Research Park already existed. He said the town homes located there today, south of Legends, were being populated by the large student body. He said Alvamar was trying to develop the area more as a family neighborhood. He said the people in the proposed rezoning area supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Susan Harris, Lawrence, spoke in favor of the rezoning. She said along with other residents in the proposed rezoning neighborhood, a research industrial designation would be the best way to maintain the safety and stability of a neighborhood which was heavily invested in families and children.
Alan Cowles, West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said there was universal agreement to change the rezoning. He said the neighborhood wanted to be rezoned to M-1 rather than a combination of residential. He said they seemed to have very good experiences with the research industrial park and not such good experience with the duplexes. Also, there was a natural divider between the proposed rezoning area and the surrounding homes which consisted of the gas line and the rather deep lots where there was no gas line. There was a natural barrier and it seemed to make no sense to jump that natural barrier with additional duplexes. He said the neighborhood encouraged the City Commission to return that area as M-1 (Research Industrial Park) rezoning.
Commissioner Highberger said the Planning Commission’s recommendation of M-1 rezoning was the best use for that property.
Commissioner Schauner said he supported the rezoning. He said he had a concern about not chipping away like on the east side of Research Park Drive at the limited amount of M-1 development space in that area.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the developer had not restricted his options under that proposal.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-11-38-03) of approximately 12.3 acres from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District) to M-1 (Research Industrial District); the property is generally described as being located on the northwest corner of Legends and Research Park Drive (extended); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously (25)
Z-06-18-03: Consider rezoning of 19.199 acres and adjacent rights-of-way from PCD-2 with restrictions (Planned Commercial) District to PCD-2 with restrictions. The property is located at the northwest corner of W. 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive. 6Wak Land Investment, LLC, is the property owner of record. Initiated by the City Commission on June 3, 2003 (PC Item No. 13; failed to approve 5-5). A valid protest petition has been filed for this item. The failure to recommend is interpreted as a denial for purposes of requiring a super-majority vote to overrule the recommendation. Four affirmative votes are required to adopt Ordinance No. 7755.
Bryan Dyer, Planner, presented the staff report. Dyer said this proposed rezoning was initiated by the City. The changing in restriction to the rezoning request was specifically the elimination of two uses, a variety story and a home improvement store, plus some restrictions in regards to the square footages and also building permits.
He said the approval of the rezoning was based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report, the Comprehensive Plan and the new area plan for that subject intersection and was subject to the following conditions:
1. No one single commercial retail use shall occupy more than 80,000 gross square feet of space;
2. The total commercial retail space on the subject property shall not exceed 154,000 gross square feet;
3. No building permit will be issued until the West 6th Street Project is substantially completed; and
4. A list of permitted uses be included as part of the rezoning ordinance.
He said the Planning Commission’s action was a 5-5 vote which was a failure to recommend approval. There had also been a valid protest petition filed for that property by the property owner. He said in order to approve that rezoning, the action would take at least 4 votes by the City Commission.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he was curious about all the Commission’s options. He asked if Dyer felt he covered all of those options.
Dyer said yes. He said because of the protest petition as well as the Planning Commission failing to take action in order to approve that rezoning, approving the rezoning would take 4 votes by the City Commission. He said without those 4 votes, it would be a failure to approve the rezoning actions and that area would keep its current zoning designation.
Owen Buckley, R. H. Johnson Co., Kansas City Missouri, said his company represented Wal-mart in their site selection process and real estate consulting activities along with Todd Thompson, Attorney in Lawrence and part of the Wal-mart legal team regarding that site. He said approximately 50 weeks ago, his company and Wal-mart‘s attorney were before the City Commission discussing a store considerably larger than the store they were applying for a building permit. He said there was a favorable staff report and Planning Commission vote. Since that time, there was a denial of the building permit and hence the litigation. He said everything was still pending. Wal-mart felt prudence dictated letting the litigation be resolved. There was no need for another lawsuit as a result of this discussion. He said their company viewed this issue as an anti-Wal-mart knee jerk reaction from the heat of last summer. He said there was no compelling need to vote on this issue at this time. He said this issue was moot if Wal-mart prevailed in the lawsuit and was unnecessary if the City prevailed. He suggested the City Commission step back and cooler heads should prevail in a matter such as this issue. He said Wal-mart would continue to pursue this site and Wal-mart would remain confident that soon there would be a successful store at that location.
Bill Newsome, 6Wak Land Investments, said on May 6, 2003 Wal-mart and 6Wak Land Investments filed for a building permit. He said within a matter of days the City Commission declared an emergency and a building permit moratorium was initiated. At the same time, the City Commission decided to initiate an ordinance to change zoning definitions which could impact the applicant’s property. Also, the City Commission decided this area needed to be planned. Therefore, the City initiated a change in the area plan and a change in the applicant’s zoning. He asked if it was coincidental that all of those items occurred within a matter of days when Wal-mart filed for a building permit. He said he did not think so. He said this was a premeditated strategy to dismantle the property owner’s rights in order to stop Wal-mart. He said the City Commissions effort’s were transparent and the enormous amount of tax payer money the City Commission was spending on this mission to stop Wal-mart was becoming more transparent everyday. He said the City Commission might make self serving statements for the record the issue was not about Wal-mart and the Commission was not targeting Wal-mart. He said the City was the defendant in all of the lawsuits in this matter and defendants, often after the fact, would make such statements to justify their actions. However, the City Commission’s action, at that time, spoke far louder than the City Commission’s words at this time.
He said they were there tonight for a matter this City Commission had characterized as “planning.” The only element of planning was a plan to strip the property owner’s rights in an effort to stop Wal-mart. The court ordered discovery has over the last 30 days started to shine the light of day on the tactics and methods in which the City was attempting to dismantle the property owner’s and Wal-mart’s rights to build on that property.
He reminded the City Commission this issue was a downzoning and not a rezoning. When taking the value off the top of a property in multiples of one million dollars with additional use and size restrictions, that word was called a downzoning. There was a reference in the staff report to the impact this change in zoning would have on the value of the owner’s property. The statement was because this property was undeveloped the size and use restrictions contemplated with that rezoning did not negatively impact the value of this property. He said that statement was naïve, and inaccurate. He said he had filed a protest petition in response to that downzoning. He asked the City Commission not lose sight of the fact that they did not need to get any of the other land owners to join them in the protest petition because they were the only land owners that suffered the consequences of the City Commission’s actions.
At the February 25th Planning Commission meeting, a Planning Commissioner asked staff if it was unusual for the City Commission to instigate a rezoning like this against a property owner’s will. The response from staff was that type of action happened numerous times before. He said it was unprecedented in the history of Lawrence. While the City had certainly initiated rezoning before, it had never been done so on a piece of property where a final development plan was in place and where the rezoning was initiated in response to an identified user attempting to pull the building permit. He said he labeled the City Commission’s action at that podium a number of ways over the past few months, but one thing he would not accuse the City Commission of was conducting business like any City Commission in recent memory.
He said as the City Commission considered this matter, he presumed the City Commission would look at the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The Planning Commission did not recommend approval of that City Commission initiated item. As for the five Planning Commissioners that voted for downzoning, he reminded the public, this City Commission appointed four of those five Planning Commissioners. Regarding the staff report, it was not written as an unbiased assessment of conditions. It was written solely to justify this City Commission’s initiated action. That had been consistent with every action over the past year, staff attempting to justify the City Commission’s actions. Unbiased reports and following the law as it related to property rights were not part of the equation.
He said he hoped the City Commission would do the right thing and not pass that downzoning. However, he had little expectation of that idea. He said because of the plan to stop Wal-mart, their expectation of this City Commission acting in a fair and unbiased way disappeared long ago.
He stood before the City Commission last year and told the Commission no matter how long this took, they, as property owners and Wal-mart, were not going away. As long as the City Commission insisted in attempting to take their property rights, they would fight the City Commission every step of the way. Assuming the City Commission took the action that the Commission initiated, the message was loud and clear to the citizens of Lawrence. The tax payer’s checkbook was wide open and the law could be made up as the City Commission would want the law to go because there was nothing more important to this City Commission than stopping Wal-mart.
Jim Bowers, attorney for 6Wak Land Investments LLC, said he appeared before the Planning Commission on February 25, 2004 and he had told the Planning Commission, in the event the City Commission followed through with the City Commission’s proposal to downzone the property, his client would be forced to file another lawsuit. He said his client did not want to file the lawsuit then, and his client did not want to file a lawsuit now because filing lawsuits was not the business they were in. He said his clients were trying to develop the property in accordance with the approved development plan. However, if the City Commission chose to enact an ordinance downzoning that property that act would constitute a taking of his client’s property and his client would be left with no other option other than to file another lawsuit. He urged the City Commission to carefully consider the City Commission’s action tonight and also urged the City Commission not to adopt the downzoning to avoid that result.
Darren Cauthon, Lawrence, spoke against the City Commission s actions. He asked the Commission to do the right thing and stop this “frivolous battle.”
Alan Cowles, West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said the City Commission heard about property rights but there was also the right for citizens to plan their city as was appropriate. He said the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association supported the City Commission’s action.
Greg DeVilbiss, Bristol Group, said he was concerned, as a property owner, this action was setting a dangerous precedent. He said he had made a substantial investment in this community. He said that action was also sending a message that if you invest in the community, there was no assurance that property would be built as planned even if you have initial approval from the governing bodies.
Lester Marsh, Lawrence, said we spend too much time in our vehicles. He said we walk less, weigh more and were more likely to be hit by a vehicle than ever before. He cited a comment from staff from the Centers for Disease Control about health consequences of urban sprawl.
He also said we needed to support more locally owned businesses and not spend money at Wal-mart.
Martha Peril said she lived close to the area and while the City Commission heard about property rights, she had rights too. She said it was important to consider the area of discussion.
Commissioner Highberger said this rezoning would bring this area more in line with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He supported adopting the ordinance.
Commissioner Schauner said he also supported the adoption of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he discussed with staff the comments the City Commission needed to be concerned about. He said this property was originally rezoned with restrictions as all zoning was and he thought the applicant had returned with changes to their plans. He thought the Community had every right to recognize the need to stay up to date with the City’s plans. He said all of the City Commission’s planning decisions were made assessing the affect on nearby properties that adhere to plans and to the public health and welfare. He said none of this was static and was part and parcel to all planning decisions.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7755, rezoning (Z-06-18-03) approximately 19.199 acres from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District) with restrictions to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District) with restrictions (the property is located at the northwest corner of West 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive). Aye: Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Hack. Motion carried. (26)
Z-06-19-03: Consider rezoning of 18.938 acres and adjacent rights-of-way from A (Agricultural) District to PCD-2 with restrictions (Planned Commercial) District. The property is located at the northeast corner of West 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive.
Z-06-20-03: Consider rezoning of 25.214 acres and adjacent rights-of-way from A (Agricultural) District to PRD-2 with restrictions (Planned Residential) District. The property is located at the northwest corner of West 6th Street and Folks Road.
Bryan Dyer presented a staff report considering the rezoning for 18.938 acres and 25.214 acres, located at the northwest corner of West 6th Street and Folks Road. He said both of those requests were also initiated by the City Commission. He said staff had recommended approval of both of those requests. However, the Planning Commission sent forward to the City Commission a unanimous recommendation for denial on both requests. In order to approve those rezoning requests it would take a super majority vote to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision. He said staff had been in communication with the property owner’s representatives concerning upcoming proposals the property owner intended to bring forward. However, the Planning office had not received any formal applications for proposals.
Marilyn Bittenbender, representing the property owner of both properties, said the property owner wanted to bring a plan forward that the developer was working on at this time. She said that plan would have a much more fully developed description of the types of buildings, traffic flow, and a number of things that would typically be seen in a development plan. She said there were some issues in the plan that was not consistent with the recommendations that staff had made. Bittenbender suggested that staff look at the plan when it was brought forward along with a slightly different zoning request. She said by the time the discussion was finished with the Planning Commission, she thought the conclusion the Planning Commission drew was because there was enough significant differences between what the property was planning to bring to the City Commission when the plan was completed and what was currently proposed. She said the developer wanted to visit with the neighbors for additional input to present to the City Commission. She asked the City Commission to support the Planning Commission’s recommendation and allow the developer to submit the plan to the Planning Commission along with the rezoning request and the plan and zoning request would be submitted to the City Commission after the Planning Commission’s action.
Mayor Dunfield asked Bittenbender to explain the difference between requesting the rezoning for the property from A (Agriculture) to whatever configuration of PCD and PRD was ultimately decided upon versus having to go through a rezoning process from PCD and PRD to a slightly different version of PCD and PRD.
Bittenbender said particularly on the east track, the recommendation had been PRD and the property owner was looking at an RO classification because that was published. She said the property owner did not know precisely whether RO zoning was correct or whether it was a combination of RO on one portion and PRD or POD. It was a mix of those uses and PRD did not provide the property owner with that latitude.
Mayor Dunfield said whatever was decided for those tracks, those tracks would likely require a zoning application at the time the plans were finalized. Right now that property was zoned agriculture and if the City Commission approved a rezoning at this time, it would be rezoned to some other category, but in either case the property owner would be coming back to the Planning Commission and the City Commission asking for a rezoning. He said it was unclear why it was less desirable to change from a PRD to an RO than it was to change from an A to an RO.
Bittenbender said she did not want to speak for the Planning Commission, but she thought the Planning Commission felt that process would be less cumbersome. She said the Planning Commission thought was if that property was simply left as agriculture, the area plan in large part would determine the perimeters of the developer’s proposal. The Planning Commission wanted to see that proposal along with the specific classifications that would support that particular development plan showing those uses.
Bill Fleming, Barber Emerson Law Firm, representing Mike Treanor, the developer of that area said a week before the Planning Commission meeting the developer had entered into a contract to purchase the property. He said they were in the process of going through the development plans and getting a plan prepared. The developer planned on submitting those plans in approximately one month. He said because of Treanor’s presentation to the Planning Commission he thought there was basic consensus of why get into a discussion of what was the appropriate zoning when that same discussion would take place in about a month and it was a matter of efficiency and not to take up time.
Fleming said part of the problem with the proposed plan was the plan had a number of use restrictions that were contained within the plan and the concern was if those restrictions were adopted as part of those rezoning requests, then not only when the developer came back to ask for zoning, they would not only need to be rezoned, but the developer would need to deal with all of those use issues that were part of the current plan.
He said the developer’s plan was to move his office to that location and it was obvious the developer wanted to be in a location that was consistent with his sense of aesthetics and design standards which were very high.
He said the current zoning plan showed a platted street which was Champion Lane. He said the developers plan was to not allow Champion Lane to go straight through and what the developer was trying to avoid a drag strip type of effect going straight through the high school. He said there would still be access through the property which would tie into Overland Drive, but by having a roundabout and some traffic calming devices at that location, it would slow traffic through the project and create a much safer environment.
The other issue that did not make a lot of sense about the current zoning plan was that it would drive Champion Lane straight through the property.
He said the Community Theater would be locating in that area and the developer was going to make a donation of some of that property to the Community Theater because that would make an attractive destination for people to enjoy those types of amenities. He said this was the developer’s vision for the plan and if zoning designations were overlaid those designations would not be consistent with the developer’s current plan.
Fleming also asked the City Commission not to adopt the plan with those proposed use restrictions with the idea that additional restrictions could be brought in and talk about the rezoning when there was a formal plan for the City Commission.
He said if the City Commission decided to adopt that rezoning, then he wanted to point out concerns. He said there were a number of use restrictions placed on the west track. He said the developer did not ask for those restrictions and those restrictions were somewhat arbitrarily assigned to the property. He said the land owner and developer had not been consulted on a lot of those use restrictions. He said the developer was not going to build a big box store or a huge development, but a development would serve the existing neighborhoods.
He said the other issue that was problematic was a proposed moratorium in the rezoning request which would restrict the ability to pull a building permit and begin construction of the property. He said that issue was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and the developer would like to see some type of compromise worked out where the developer could build at least the infrastructure and buildings and have some type of agreement that the developer restrict access on to Champion Lane until all of the road widening had occurred or as an alternative do something to restrict pulling occupancy permits until the road widening was completed. He said he understood that road widening should be completed sometime in 2005.
He said the developer understood the precedent with Home Depot, but history did not need to repeat itself and there could be something that could be worked out, but that was another issue they would object to, which was in the current rezoning request. He said the biggest problem was the developer would want some zoning designations which were different and the developer was concerned about the inertia that would set in if the area was already zoned.
Alan Cowles, West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said his neighborhood association did not support the rezoning at this time. He said the association felt the courts would force the neighborhood to have a big box store on the northwest corner and along with the additional buildings, raised traffic concerns. He said this issue seemed too open ended. He complimented Mike Treanor and looked forward to working with him in the future.
Linda Finger, Planner Director, said the City Commission had received a schematic that had not gone through any review or approval process. She asked the City Commission not to rely too much on what the Commission saw as just another document of support for the applicant’s position.
Mayor Dunfield said he had some questions that came out of comments received from the public. He said the first question was the use restrictions that had been provided for the PCD proposal, he asked if those use restrictions were related to the nodal plan. He noticed there was a limitation on square footage which was directly out of the nodal plan and he asked if it was true also of the use restrictions that those have a correlation of with the adopted nodal plan.
Dyer said yes, as well as the idea this proposal was more of a community commercial center and the exiting uses that could possibly occur, on the northwest corner, were intense. The idea was northeast corner to have less intense uses and more of neighborhood uses.
Mayor Dunfield said the zoning map indicated Champion Lane going straight through and he understood there was not a final decision on the configuration of Champion Lane.
Dyer said the reason the map indicated that street was going through was because it was currently platted for the right-of-way in that location.
Mayor Dunfield asked if it was planning staff’s belief that additional connection through was appropriate.
Dyer said when staff reviewed the previous application two years ago for that location there was a traffic study performed by the applicant at that time. That traffic study indicated connection would provide some relief to the intersection of 6th and Wakarusa. The City Engineer also concurred that having a connection at that location would be a way to alleviate some possible traffic issues at 6th and Wakarusa. He said without seeing a plan, it was difficult to perform an analysis of the applicant request in regards to whether Champion Lane should go through or not.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if that issue was at a development plan stage where staff would make their recommendations and negotiate with the applicant.
Dyer said correct.
Mayor Dunfield asked staff to comment also on the question of rezoning at a future date based on changes in the proposed development.
Finger said as far as rezoning from A to PCD and POD or from PCD to PCD was the same type of review. The distinction was that A (Agricultural) was a County zoning designation and it was more difficult to do any type of zoning enforcement from the City’s perspective. She said the zoning regulations indicated that once land was annexed the land should be rezoned to a City zoning designation. Staff thought it made since to go ahead and rezone this property.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked how many other areas in the City were zoned Agriculture.
Finger said with the exception of what staff did along the 6th Street Corridor, the majority of that area still retained its agricultural zoning going west.
Commissioner Hack asked Bittenbender to comment again on why rezoning from agriculture was better than rezoning from something else.
Bittenbender said at the Planning Commission meeting that idea was not thought through. She said when a piece of property was zoned agriculture the goal was to have a subsequent zoning classification assigned. At one time, that property did have conditional PCD zoning and that type of zoning went on for a period of time. She said during that period of time there was a development plan submitted and that plan was not approved. She said the property owners received notification that if there was no development plan approved then the zoning would not be allowed to remain in effect because PCD or any other “P” classification zoning designation the assumption was that had a concurrent development plan that went along. She said that zoning was no longer in effect.
Commissioner Hack asked about the timeframe for this proposal.
Bittenbender said this was the first time in her history with this property that she believed this was a viable project with a local, bona fide, and qualified developer that could accomplish a plan that this community would be delighted to see.
Commissioner Schauner asked Finger what the downside was for not rezoning at this time and leaving it zoned agricultural until for a month or two.
Finger said from a zoning standpoint there was no overwhelming downside.
Corliss said the property has been in the City for almost a decade. He said there had been a number of different development proposals. The trajectory of those issues was that the City Commission had asked for a nodal plan and staff had provided that nodal plan. The rezonings that were being considered were implementing that plan and the City Commission was not reacting to a proposal, but planning the location and allocating the commercial square footage.
He said he understood the property owner’s issues and the property owner’s would be in a more refined and focused standpoint. When those property owners come to the City Commission, the Commission would have already zoned the property according to the nodal plan and those areas of difference between what the developer was proposing and what the City Commission had in the actual adopted rezoning ordinances would be the area of discussion and the City Commission could deal with that accordingly. He said it might be a bit cumbersome in the fact that some of the property would be rezoned already, but he did not see that property that had been rezoned, a particular hindrance on the property because he thought that was good planning. He said when talking about an intersection that the City Commission had significant interest in to indicate what the allowed uses on that property were. He said he hoped the developer would come back soon with a favorable proposal that responded to the nodal plan.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the City Commission approved the rezoning at this time, would the City Commission adopt an amended version of the findings of fact and then that amended version would become direction to the Planning Commission. Alternatively, he asked if the City Commission did not rezone, would the City Commission send direction back to the Planning Commission in terms of how that property related to the nodal plan.
Finger said what was forwarded to the City Commission from the Planning Commission was a recommendation for denial and if the City Commission took no action or concurred with the Planning Commission, then it would be a good idea to at least give a statement as to what the City Commission would see as relevant for the Planning Commission’s consideration, specifically in regard to points within the nodal plan or the land use plan that the City Commission found particularly compelling when looking at a specific development plan for that property.
Mayor Dunfield said with regard to the findings of fact, the staff report recommended approval. If the City Commission approved the zoning then the findings of fact would have already been established.
Finger said yes, but if the City Commission did not approve the zoning, the Planning Commission had provided the City Commission with two findings with the Planning Commission’s motions for denial.
Corliss said he also wanted to request the findings of fact be set out in the minutes for all three of the City Commission’s actions regarding those rezonings.
Commissioner Schauner said if the City Commission adopted the rezoning at this time, the City Commission would essentially be saying that those were the uses the City Commission believed were appropriately permitted at that location and were consistent with the nodal plan. Hence the City Commission would set the ground rules for developing that property. If the developer wanted to do something different than what was allowed in that PCD-2 with restrictions zoning, then the developer would need to come back to the Planning Commission and ask for some exception to the permitted uses as with respect to size, use, or whatever else the developer wanted to talk about. He asked if that thinking was accurate.
Corliss said that thinking was accurate in configuration and would focus the discussion on that issue.
Commissioner Schauner said Treanor did terrific projects and Treanor would do a good job on that ground. He said clearly that land would be developed at some point, in some configuration and to the extent that rezoning did not unduly impede the ability to develop that ground, he thought the City Commission should move forward and rezone that land.
Commissioner Hack said the City Commission was hearing from people that developing that land would impede the progress.
Bittenbender said there were two issues. The simpler issue to address was the shuffling of classifications on the map as far as the actual zoning. The bigger issue was the restrictions on uses. It seemed very burdensome because over time the developer would not know what specific uses might be appropriate.
Commissioner Schauner asked Cowles if his neighborhood association preferred that the City Commission not rezone that property at this time.
Cowles said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked what was the neighborhood’s rational for that position.
Cowles said the neighborhood association did not know how the northwest corner would work out and the association feared there would be a giant big box store at that location with an enormous amount of traffic.
Commissioner Schauner asked Cowles if the neighborhood association believed the northeast and northwest corners should be developed with knowledge about what each side of the street would look like.
Cowles said yes.
Commissioner Hack said the rezoning request had been denied by the Planning Commission and to approve the rezoning request would take a super majority. She said since the rezoning did not appear to have a significant downside to the Planning Commission’s recommendation, she suggested denying the rezoning request with the hope that rezoning would come back fairly quickly with a second option.
Mayor Dunfield said he saw the opposite view which was that the rezoning request was a logical extension of the nodal plan the City Commission approved. He said this was a final step from the City Commission’s point of view in that process the City Commission started by asking for the nodal plan. He said the City Commission’s action either way would not prevent the property owner from developing something good in that area. It seemed reasonable the City Commission complete the action, the City Commission started, by initiating the nodal plan and approve the rezoning.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked Finger if she thought the rezoning restricted the ability to get the very best development plan to work for the applicant and allow the applicant to come back with a proposal that would do what the applicant wanted to do.
Finger said that question was difficult. If the City Commission took the action at this time to approve the zoning, what approving the zoning would do was the zoning would set the performance standard that this governing body wanted to see as far as the land uses and square footages of individual users and the total square footage of retail.
If the City Commission did not take action on the zoning and the uses were not restricted, then it would leave an open book to the present property owner to provide whatever the property owner believed was suitable for the property owner’s development proposal. She said in one situation, the ball was in the City Commission’s court to set the standard and in the other court was more of a reaction to what was proposed.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the legal representative asserted the City Commission could come back with additional use restrictions or changes. He asked if Finger concurred.
Finger said staff supported use restrictions generally on any development proposal in light of the nodal plan and because the list was originally generated by staff those uses would look very similar.
Vice Mayor Rundle said conversely, if there were uses the City Commission restricted that the property owner felt were essential, he asked if staff would be able to assess that situation and make a recommendation on whether or not the property owner would go back on staff’s recommendation.
Finger said staff would point out where those recommendations were inconsistent and if staff believed there was a reason that had been provided by the applicant that staff had not previously considered, staff would point out what that reasoning was.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he was leaning toward rezoning, but he wanted the City Commission to discuss the direction the City Commission would give in terms of the policies in the nodal plan and which if those policies had a higher priority than the specifics of the details that related to the development plan.
Commissioner Highberger said he did not think anything in the pending litigation would change the amount of square footage at the northwest corner. He said the City Commission’s consensus was to limit the uses on the northeast corner to neighborhood oriented uses. He said there would be use restrictions regardless of whether that area was rezoned now or later. He said he supported moving forward.
Commissioner Schauner said he appreciated the neighborhood’s concerns, but he agreed with Commissioner Highberger in the total square footage on those two corners was probably not going to change without respect to the outcome of the litigation.
He encouraged the developer to bring to the City Commission a plan to develop that northeast corner. He said that area was the last piece of what he believed would be major commercial development in that general area. He would like to see a user friendly, neighborhood friendly, and neighborhood oriented site developed in that area.
He agreed the City Commission should more forward with the rezoning.
Mayor Dunfield asked for comment about granting an occupancy permit before the 6th Street improvements were substantially completed. He said Fleming acknowledged the City Commission had an issue with Home Depot where the City Commission said there would be no occupancy before the improvements were completed and then the City Commission ended up changing that decision. He said a building permit meant a substantial development was still a year or more away from completion. He said to delay the development for a year after substantial completion of the 6th Street improvement did not seem to create any additional benefits to the community. He asked if that idea was giving the City Commission more backbone in terms of not allowing the development to go ahead in advance of the infrastructure.
Commissioner Highberger said he did not know how the City Commission could be guaranteed this situation would not be another Home Depot situation. He said he would trust the current City Commission not to grant occupancy permits before the roads were ready.
Commissioner Hack said the City Commission needed to remember that situation with the Home Depot. She said one of the issues found with the Home Depot was that the roads were safe and the intersection was substantially complete and the road was as safe as any other area that was under construction at that time. She said a whole intersection could not be shut down because the intersection was being worked on.
Commissioner Schauner said the comments from Fleming seemed to make some sense. He said the infrastructure development commencing before the 6th Street improvement was substantially completed would be different than pulling a building permit to actually begin building buildings.
Mayor Dunfield asked if Commissioner Schauner was suggesting allowing grading site improvements or maybe foundations, but not construction coming out of the ground.
Commissioner Schauner said he thought Fleming said putting the streets in before the West 6th improvement was substantially completed. He thought that idea was not a bad idea because you were still some substantial time away from completion of those streets before you could have traffic from those consumers.
Commissioner Hack asked if there was a gap between the consumer traffic and the builder’s traffic. She said the building could still go on. She suggested staff input in terms of what other communities did on the level of acceptability for road improvements.
Commissioner Schauner said his concern was greater than that particular corner. He said there were 200 plus units ready to be built on the west side of Congressional at 6th Street. He said there was already development in the works for the south side of 6th around George Williams Way and there would be a substantial amount of construction traffic though perhaps not as many vehicles as if there were consumers and residents. He said there would be big trucks and he found them more intimidating than a Honda.
He suggested not holding up that rezoning on the first condition, but be willing to look at that issue with some additional staff input. He said he was concerned about treating all of those properties the same. He said if the City Commission needed to revisit the substantial compliance building permit question, he preferred the City Commission revisit that issue even handedly across the board.
Finger suggested revisiting this issue with the new rezoning request because the development plan needed to come forward.
Corliss said revisiting that issue would not be treating all of the property the same because the City Commission would not be revisiting the property that the City Commission rezoned with Ordinance No. 7755.
Commissioner Schauner said he preferred that the City Commission reconsider all of those properties.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked, regarding the rezoning that the City Commission approved last week, if that rezoning included a restriction for no building permits or no occupancy.
Finger said that needed to be researched, but she knew there was a relationship between the 6th Street improvements and that project.
Mayor Dunfield said Commissioner Schauner’s point was good in that this issue should not be held up and also revisit those issues for all of those properties involved, if necessary. He said more guidance from staff was needed on discussion of the merits of different options would be helpful.
Finger asked if the Commissioners would like to know what “substantially” meant and what implication that would have if a permit could not be pulled until after the project was substantially completed.
Commissioner Hack suggested looking at various stages of completion.
Corliss said substantial completion for a public improvement was that the public improvement could be used for its intended use, but not all of the items had been completed for the contract which meant that you could drive on the road or walk on the side walk.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7756, rezoning (Z-06-19-03) approximately 18.938 acres from A (Agricultural District) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District) with restrictions (the property is located at the northeast corner of West 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive). Aye: Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Hack. Motion carried. (27)
Moved by Schauner , seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7757, rezoning (Z-06-20-03) approximately 25.214 acres from A (Agricultural District) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District) with restrictions (the property is located at the northwest corner of West 6th Street and Folks Road). Aye: Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Hack. Motion carried. (28)
Corliss said the next item was for the City Commission to consider Ordinance 7761, which would repeal the building permit moratorium. The City Commission’s action would repeal that building permit moratorium on the effective date of the rezoning ordinance that was adopted. He also asked the City Commission for a separate motion to direct the City Clerk to indicate that the City Commission was favorably adopting the staff report findings of fact for those three rezonings and ask that the City Clerk place those findings of fact in the City Commission meeting minutes.
Mayor Dunfield said what the City Commission was looking at was the repeal of the moratorium which was the logical conclusion of the nodal plan and rezoning process.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7761, repealing the building permit moratorium on the effective date of the rezoning ordinances. Motion carried unanimously. (29)
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adopt the staff recommended findings of fact for the rezonings Z-06-18-03, Z-06-19-03, and Z-06-20-03, and direct the City Clerk to place the staff recommended findings of fact in the City Commission meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. (30)
FINDINGS OF FACT Z-06-18-03: PCD-2 (W/USE RESTRICTIONS) TO PCD-2 (W/USE RESTRICTIONS); 19.199 ACRES; NORTHWEST CORNER W. OF 6TH STREET AND WAKARUSA DRIVE (BPD)
I. ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTY NEARBY
Staff Finding - The subject property is located at the northwest corner of W. 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive. The properties to the east and west are zoned Agricultural and undeveloped.
The property to the east and adjacent to the subject property is zoned Agricultural and undeveloped. The property has been approved for a rezoning to POD-1. However, the rezoning is condition upon approval of a preliminary development plan.
The property to the east of Wakarusa Drive is currently used for agricultural purposes and has a county zoning classification of Agricultural District. The City Commission initiated the rezoning of this property from A to PCD-2 (Z-06-19-03) at the same time as they initiated the rezoning of the subject property. Rezoning request Z-06-19-03 is on this month’s Planning Commission agenda.
The property to the north of the subject property is zoned PRD-2 and is undeveloped.
The property to the west is zoned O-1 and Agricultural. The property zoned Agricultural has been conditionally rezoned to PRD-2. The rezoning action was conditioned upon approval of a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-04-08-03), which is Item 16 on this month’s agenda.
II. CHARACTER OF THE AREA
Staff Finding - The subject property is located in a transition area with the commercial uses to the south and; park, school, and residential uses to the north. The subject property is in the path of the logical urban expansion of the City. There exists a significant amount of commercial uses (based on the square footage and acreage for a community commercial node) at the corner of W. 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive.
III. SUITABILITY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE USES TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN
RESTRICTED
Staff Finding - The subject property is located inside of the corporate limits and zoned for commercial uses. However, the proposed “big box” store and the lack of improvements to W. 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive make this property unsuitable for the existing uses to which it is restricted.
IV. LENGTH OF TIME SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT AS ZONED
Staff Finding - The subject property has been zoned PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) since February 2002.
V. EXTENT TO WHICH REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS WILL DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT NEARBY PROPERTY
Staff Finding – Rezoning approximately 19.199 acres to add additional zoning restrictions will not have a detrimental affect on nearby property.
VI. RELATIVE GAIN TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BY THE DESTRUCTION OF THE VALUE OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPERTY AS COMPARED TO THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED UPON THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS
Staff Finding – The gain in public welfare and safety outweighs the relative hardship that will be imposed on the property owner as a result of the additional restrictions placed upon the property through this rezoning request.
VII. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Staff Finding - The request to rezone 19.199 acres to PCD-2 with revised use restrictions on development of the property is in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Horizon 2020.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of 19.199 acres from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) with use restrictions to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) with revised use restrictions as listed below, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and forwarding of it to the Lawrence City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:
|
|
ZONING DISTRICTS |
PERMITTED USE GROUPS |
Parking Group |
Special Cond. |
|||||
|
|
CP |
C1 |
C2 |
C3 |
C4 |
C5 |
|||
|
20-709.10 |
|
|
S |
S |
S |
S |
USE GROUP 12. RETAIL STORES - PERSONAL SERVICES. Certain types of retail stores and service establishments which: (a) Provide for a wide variety of local consumer and transient needs, and (b) Have a small service area and are, therefore, not distributed widely throughout the city. (1) Retail Stores and Service Establishments Altering, pressing, repairing of wearing apparel Antique sales Appliance, furniture, home furnishings, sales, rental repair Art supply sales
Bank, savings & loan and trust company Barber or beauty shop Bicycle sales, rental, repair Book sales Bowling alley Camera or photographic supply sales Clothing sales
Computer store; sales, service and equipment Confectionery store Department store Drug store Dry cleaning Eating place, enclosed, without dancing or entertainment and not providing service in automobiles Florist shop and greenhouse
Food store, including retail bakery Furrier shop, including storage of furs Garden supply sales Gift, novelty, souvenir sales Hardware store and small tool rental, but not including sales of lumber or industrial hardware Hat blocking and repair Hobby supply sales
Interior decorating shop Jewelry sales and repair Laundry pick-up station Laundry, self-service only
Locksmith, key shop Mail order agency Music, musical instrument and phonographic record sales Newsstand Nursery stock sales Optical goods, sales Orthopedic or medical appliance sales Paint and wall paper sales
Photographic processing Photographic studio Post Office Quick copy or duplicating center Radio and television studio Reading room Sewing machine sales and repair Shoe repair and sales Sporting goods sales Surgical and dental supply sales Theatre, indoor commercial
Video store, sale or rental of video equipment, movies and games parlor
|
12 13 13 12
12 11 13 12 10 12 15
12 12 12 11 12 26
12
11 13 13 12 12
13 12
12 12 12 11
12 12 13 11 13 13 12 13
15 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 9 12 12
|
1428
1453
1453
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Similar Uses Other uses which (1) are similar to the listed uses in function, traffic- generating capacity, and effects on other land uses, and (2) are not included in any other use group. 3. Accessory Uses (Ord. 6578)
|
|
|
|
20-709.11 |
|
|
|
S |
S |
S |
USE GROUP 13. AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES; RETAIL SALES; OTHER. Primarily automotive service establishments and accessory uses, including consumer and non-consumer retail goods and services not appropriate for the neighborhood shopping district, including certain goods and services for agricultural, industrial, commercial, or institutional use. 1.
Ambulance service
Auction room auctioneer Automobile parking garage Automobile parts store; tires & accessories
Barber and beauty equipment sales Baseball park, commercial Blueprinting and similar reproduction processes
Business machine rental, repair, sales
Caterer Eating establishment, enclosed, with dancing or entertainment
Exterminator, pest
Food locker plant, for consumer use Free standing automated banking or dispensing facility Funeral home, mortuary, or undertaking establishment Garage or parking for common or public utility vehicles Glass sales and cutting shop Golf driving range, commercial, (pkg. requirement applies to tee area only) Golf pitch and putt courses, miniature golf course
Laboratory, medical or dental Leather goods, sales and repair Linen supply, diaper service, uniform supply
Lumber, limited sales Media Store (Ord. 7226)
Monument sales, including incidental processing
Office equipment and supplies, sales and service, rental and repair Pet shop Photostatting Plumbing fixture sales Quick copy or duplicating center Recording studio School, commercial or trade, when not involving any danger of fire or explosion, nor of offensive odor, noise, dust, glare, heat, vibration or other objectionable factors Secretarial service
Skating rink, commercial Studio for professional work or for the teaching of any form of fine arts, photography, music, drama, etc. Swimming pool, commercial (parking requirements include pool area) Taxidermist Telephone answering service
2. Similar Uses Other business services which (1) are similar to the listed uses in function, traffic-generating capacity, and effects upon other land uses, and (2) are not included in any other use group. 3. Manufacturing Uses Baked goods, candy, delicatessen, and ice cream, all for retail sales on the premises only Clothing: custom manufacturing or altering for retail, including custom dressmaking, millinery, or tailoring 4. Accessory Uses (Ord. 6578)
|
21
12
16
15 7 12
13
17 14 26
15
15
7
13 18 18 12
16 12 17
12 12
17
13 12 12 12 11 16 16
13
12 13
11 15
17 16
15
15
|
1428
1405 1407
1453 1453
1415
1442
1442 1459/1460
1437
1426
|
|
20-709.12 |
|
|
|
S |
S |
|
USE GROUP 14. RETAIL - WHOLESALE SALES AND SERVICES. Consumer and non-consumer type retail and wholesale stores and service establishments and accessory uses that serve a wide area, including the entire city and surrounding trade area. 1. Retail - Wholesale Goods and Services
Blacksmith shop Building materials and lumber yards (parking requirements do not apply to lumber sheds) Cold storage plant
Dry cleaning plant, including carpet cleaning
Feed and fertilizer sales
Hardware, industrial sales Ice plant Machine tools, sales, rental, repair
2. Similar Uses Other uses which (1) are similar to the listed uses in function, traffic-generating capacity, and effects on other land uses, and (2) are not included in any other use group. 3. Accessory Uses (Ord. 6768)
|
15
15 13
17
12
15
15 22 15
12
|
1428
|
|
20-709.13 |
|
|
S |
S |
S |
S |
USE GROUP 15. AMUSEMENT, RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL FACILITIES. Uses similar in nature and traffic-generating capacities that appeal to large groups of people or that provide uses with high density (people to space) ratios whose primary intent is one of amusement or recreational pursuits or cultural enrichment. 1. Indoor Recreational Amusement or Cultural Facilities Athletic club Auditorium Bowling alley Field house Game arcade, including video games Physical culture center and health services, including spas, gymnasiums, reducing salons, masseur/masseuse, or hot tubs Skating rink Swimming pool, commercial Theatre, indoor 2. Outdoor Amusement, Recreational or Cultural Facilities Baseball park or batting cages, commercial Golf driving range or putting greens, commercial Golf, miniature or pitch and putt
Marina
Stadium or amphitheater Swimming pool, commercial 3. Similar Uses Other uses not specifically mentioned in this or any other use group which are similar in function and traffic-generating capacity to those specifically listed in this use group. 4. Accessory Uses Uses which meet the requirements of the definition of accessory uses, Sections 20-2002(2) and 20-2002(3). (Ord. 5658, Sec. IX)
|
12 7 10 7 11 11
12 11 9
7 18 18
13 7 11 |
1428
1426/1427
1426/1427
1415
1426/1427
|
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR Z-06-19-03: A TO PCD-2 (W/USE RESTRICTIONS); 18.938 ACRES; NORTH OF 6TH STREET AND EAST OF WAKARUSA DRIVE (BPD)
I. ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTY NEARBY
Staff Finding - The subject property is located at the northeast corner of West 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive. The property is bounded by Overland Drive to the north, Champion Lane right-of-way to the east, West 6th Street to the south, and Wakarusa Drive to the west. The property is within the incorporated city limits of the City of Lawrence.
There are a wide variety of land uses and zoning patterns surrounding the subject property. Development patterns around the property occur in various stages ranging from undeveloped lands to the west and cultivated cropland to the east to commercial and office development to the southeast, south, and southwest. Public and institutional uses are located to the northwest, north, and northeast of the property.
Zoning districts around the property include RS-1 (Single-Family Residential) to the north and northeast; Agricultural District to the east with a pending rezoning to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development); PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) to the southeast, south, and southwest; PCD-2 to the west with a pending rezoning to PCD-2 with restrictions; and A District to the west and northwest.
II. CHARACTER OF THE AREA
Staff Finding - The subject property is surrounded by a variety of uses at urban development intensity. These uses include residential, commercial, office, and public/institutional development. Those areas that do remain undeveloped are quickly developing or are planned to be developed in the near future.
III. SUITABILITY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE USES TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED
Staff Finding - The subject property is located inside the corporate limits and may still be used for agricultural purposes. As urban development continues to surround the subject property, the ability to viably continue the agricultural uses on the property diminishes. More intensive urban development is appropriate at this location.
IV. LENGTH OF TIME SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT AS ZONED
Staff Finding - The subject property has been zoned A (Agricultural District) since the adoption of the Zoning Regulations for the Unincorporated Territory of Douglas County, Kansas in 1966.
V. EXTENT TO WHICH REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS WILL DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT NEARBY PROPERTY
Staff Finding - Rezoning of the approximately 18.938 acres to PCD-2 with restrictions will not have detrimental effect on nearby property.
VI. RELATIVE GAIN TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BY THE DESTRUCTION OF THE VALUE OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPERTY AS COMPARED TO THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED UPON THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS
Staff Finding - The rezoning of this land will not destroy the value of the subject property or impose a hardship on the landowner or the general public.
VII. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Staff Finding - The rezoning request is in conformance with The Northwest Plan and the comprehensive plan, Horizon 2020.
VIII. PROFESSIONAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request from A to PCD-2 with the use restrictions listed below based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of this Staff Report and forwarding of it to the Lawrence City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:
|
|
|
ZONING DISTRICTS |
PERMITTED USE GROUPS |
Parking Group |
Special Cond. |
||||
|
|
|
RO-1, 1A, 1B |
RO-2 |
RS |
RM |
RD |
|||
|
|
20-610.8 |
S |
S |
S |
S |
S |
USE GROUP 7. COMMUNITY FACILITIES - PUBLIC UTILITIES (a) may appropriately be located in residential areas to provide education, recreation, health, and other essential services and, (b) do not create significant objectionable influences in residential areas.
1. Community Facilities Adaptive reuse of properties listed as a landmark on the Lawrence, State or National Registers of Historic Places or included in the Lawrence or National Register of Historic Districts Art gallery or museum Cemetery, columbarium, or mausoleum Child care center Child care home - occupant primary provider Child care home - non-occupant primary provider Church or other place of worship, including student center Club or lodge, private, except those whose chief activity is carried on as a business Communication Towers Community building, public Golf course, but not including commercially operated driving range, pitch and putt course or miniature golf course
Health center, government operated
Institution for children and aged, nonprofit Library or museum: public or private, open to public without charge Monastery, convent or similar institution of religious training Mortuary, funeral parlor, or undertaking establishment Nursing home or rest home Parish house, nunnery, rectory, etc. Park, playground, or playfield, public Private recreation facility (exclusive of family swimming pools and swimming pools that are accessory uses to hotels, motels and apartments)
Sanitarium School, public, parochial, or private, non-profit: (a) Grades nine and below including kindergarten (b) Grades ten and above Studio for professional work or for teaching of any form of fine arts e.g. photography, music, dancing, drama, etc. Swimming pool, accessory Theatre, live (if indoors) 2. Public Utilities Electrical substation Gas regulator station Radio or television transmitter or tower
Telephone exchange, but not including garage, shop, or service Water filtration plant, pumping station, elevated storage or reservoir 3. Similar Uses All other uses which (1) are similar to the listed uses in function, traffic-generating capacity, and effects on other land uses and (2) are not included in any other use group. 4. Accessory Uses (Ord. 6359; Ord. 6382; Ord. 6489)
|
25
12
22 22 22 8 15
15 23
6 14 6 22 13 6 7 6 1
22 6
22 16 13
7
22
22 22 |
1428
1608/1451
1427 1408 1424/1608 1424 1424/1608 1409 1608/1410/ 1448 14B02/1608 1427 1416
1608/1448 1608/1448 1608 1608 1427 1409
1608
1441/1608/ 1448
1608/1448 1608
1608/1457
1437 1608/1448
1608 1608 14B02/1608 1608 1608 1608 |
|
20-610.10 |
S |
S |
|
|
|
USE GROUP 9. PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. Offices for medical, professional and governmental purposes and accessory use, not including retail sales to the public, that are of a nature that may be located adjacent to or combined with residential uses without harmful effects to said residential uses.
1. Medical and Related Offices Chiropody, chiropractic, dental, electrology, medical, optical, optometric, osteopathic, including a clinic 2. Ambulatory (Outpatient) Surgery Center 3. Professional and Governmental Offices Accounting, architecture, engineering, governmental, insurance sales, law, real estate and sales and brokerage, motion picture studios (enclosed) 4. Veterinarian Office and incidental boarding, with no open kennel or yard where animals are confined or exercised 5. Financial Institutions 6. Studio for professional work or for teaching of any form of fine arts e.g. photography, music, dancing, drama, etc. 7. Other Offices All other offices which (1) are similar to the listed uses in function, traffic-generating capacity, effects on other land uses, and (2) are not included in any other use group. 8. Accessory Uses. (Ord. 6287; Ord. 6770; Ord. 7047 rev.)
|
11
27 13
14
12 13 |
1428
1458
1403
1608/1457 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zoning District |
PERMITTED USE GROUPS |
Parking Group |
Special Cond. |
|
|
O-1 |
|||
|
20-7A04.3 |
S |
USE GROUP 9A. LIMITED SERVICES. These uses are limited in development, intensity and traffic-generating capacity to uses which are compatible with established residential neighborhoods.
1. Bank, savings & loan, and trust company Dry cleaning outlet store Freestanding automated banking or dispensing facility Funeral home, mortuary or undertaking establishment Laboratory, medical or dental Loan office Personnel services Photographic studio Post Office branch facility Professional cleaning services Radio and television studio Recording studio School, commercial or trade, when not involving any danger of fire or explosion, nor of offensive odor, noise, dust, glare, heat, vibration or other objectionable factors Secretarial service Studio for professional work or for teaching of any form of fine arts i.e. photograph, music, dancing, drama, etc. Telephone answering service
2. Accessory Uses |
12 12
7 16 13 13 12 12 13 12 16 16
13 13
12 |
1428
|
20-709.
|
|
ZONING DISTRICTS |
PERMITTED USE GROUPS |
Parking Group |
Special Cond. |
|||||
|
|
CP |
C1 |
C2 |
C3 |
C4 |
C5 |
|||
|
20-709.9 |
|
S |
S |
S |
S |
S |
USE GROUP 11. INNER NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES. These uses are limited in development, intensity and traffic-generating capacity to uses which are compatible with established residential neighborhoods.
1. Bicycle sales, rental or repair Book store, new or used Dry cleaning outlet store Food store, not including 24 hr. convenience store Hair care establishment Laundry, self-serve Professional Offices (excluding medical and veterinarian offices and clinics) Quick copy center Restaurant, not including one with drive-up facilities or service to automobiles Retail bakery Reverse vending machines (recycling) Shoe repair service Small collection facilities (recycling) Studio for professional work or for teaching of any form of fine arts i.e. photography, music, dancing, drama, etc. 2. Accessory Uses (Ord. 6578; Ord. 6777)
|
13 12 12 11 11 11 13 11 26
11
12
13 |
1428/1446
1453
1450
1450 |
|
20-709.10 |
|
|
S |
S |
S |
S |
Barber or beauty shop Bicycle sales, rental, repair Book sales
Camera or photographic supply sales
Computer store; sales, service and equipment Confectionery store
Drug store Dry cleaning Eating place, enclosed, without dancing or entertainment and not providing service in automobiles Florist shop and greenhouse
Garden supply sales Gift, novelty, souvenir sales
Hobby supply sales
Interior decorating shop Jewelry sales and repair
Locksmith, key shop
Music, musical instrument and phonographic record sales Newsstand
Paint and wall paper sales
Sporting goods sales
|
12 13 13 12
12 11 13 12 10 12 15
12 12
11 12 26
12
11 13 13 12 12
13 12
12 12 12 11
12 12 13 11 13 13 12 13
15 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 9 12 12
|
1428
1453
1453
|
|
20-709.11 |
|
|
|
S |
S |
S |
USE GROUP 13.
AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES; RETAIL SALES; OTHER. Primarily automotive service establishments
and accessory uses, including consumer and non-consumer retail goods and services
not appropriate for the neighborhood shopping district, including certain
goods and services for agricultural, industrial, commercial, or institutional
use
Golf driving range, commercial, (pkg. requirement applies to tee area only) Golf pitch and putt courses, miniature golf course
|
21
12
16
15 7 12
13
14 26
15
15
7
13 18 18 12
16 12 17
12 12
17
13 12 12 12 11 16 16
13
12 13
11 15
17 16
15
15
|
1428
1405
1453
1415
1442
1442 1459/1460
1437
|
|
20-709.12 |
|
|
|
S |
S |
|
|
15
15 13
17
12
15
15 22 15
12
|
1428
|
|
20-709.13 |
|
|
S |
S |
S |
S |
USE GROUP 15. AMUSEMENT, RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL FACILITIES. Uses similar in nature and traffic-generating capacities that appeal to large groups of people or that provide uses with high density (people to space) ratios whose primary intent is one of amusement or recreational pursuits or cultural enrichment. 1. Indoor Recreational Amusement or Cultural Facilities Athletic club Auditorium Bowling alley Field house Game arcade, including video games Physical culture center and health services, including spas, gymnasiums, reducing salons, masseur/masseuse, or hot tubs Skating rink Swimming pool, commercial Theatre, indoor 2. Outdoor Amusement, Recreational or Cultural Facilities Baseball park or batting cages, commercial Golf driving range or putting greens, commercial Golf, miniature or pitch and putt Marina
Stadium or amphitheater Swimming pool, commercial 3. Similar Uses Other uses not specifically mentioned in this or any other use group which are similar in function and traffic-generating capacity to those specifically listed in this use group. 4. Accessory Uses Uses which meet the requirements of the definition of accessory uses, Sections 20-2002(2) and 20-2002(3). (Ord. 5658, Sec. IX)
|
12 7 10 7 11 11
12 11 9
7 18 18
13 7 11 |
1428
1426/1427
1426/1427
1415
1426/1427
|
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR Z-06-20-03: A TO PRD-2; 25.214 ACRES; NORTH OF 6TH STREET AND WEST OF FOLKS ROAD
I. ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTY NEARBY
Staff Finding - The subject property is located at the northwest corner of West 6th Street and Folks Road. The property is bounded by Overland Drive to the north, Folks Road to the east, West 6th Street to the south, and Champion Lane (right-of-way) to the west. The property is within the incorporated city limits of the City of Lawrence.
There is a wide variety of land uses and zoning patterns surrounding the subject property. Development patterns around the property occurs in various stages ranging from undeveloped lands to the east and south and cultivated cropland to the west to commercial and office development to the south and southwest and single- and multiple-family residential development to the north, northeast, east, and south. Public and institutional uses are located to the north and northwest of the property.
Zoning patterns around the property include RS-1 to the north and northwest; RO-1B to the north; PRD-1 to the northeast; PRD-2 to the east; RO-1B to the east and southeast; O-1 to the south; RO-1A to the south; PCD-2 to the south and southwest; and A to the west with a pending rezoning to PCD-2 (Z-06-19-03) with restrictions.
II. CHARACTER OF THE AREA
Staff Finding - The subject property is surrounded by a variety of uses at urban development intensity. These uses include residential, commercial, office, and public/institutional development. Those areas that do remain undeveloped are quickly developing or are planned to be developed in the near future.
III. SUITABILITY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE USES TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED
Staff Finding - The subject property is located inside the corporate limits and may still be used for agricultural purposes. As urban development continues to surround the subject property, the ability to viably continue the agricultural uses on the property diminishes. More intensive urban development is appropriate at this location.
IV. LENGTH OF TIME SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT AS ZONED
Staff Finding - The subject property has been zoned A (Agricultural) District since 1966. It was annexed into the City in 1995.
V. EXTENT TO WHICH REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS WILL DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT NEARBY PROPERTY
Staff Finding - Rezoning of the approximately 25.214 acres to PRD-2 will not detrimentally effect nearby property. A PRD-2 designation will serve as a buffer from a principal arterial street and more intensive existing commercial developments to the south, southwest, and west. It also provides a transition between these uses and the less-intensive residential developments to the north, northeast, and east.
VI. RELATIVE GAIN TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BY THE DESTRUCTION OF THE VALUE OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPERTY AS COMPARED TO THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED UPON THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS
Staff Finding - The rezoning of this land will not destroy the value of the subject property or impose a hardship on the landowner or the general public.
VII. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Staff Finding - The rezoning request is in conformance with the long-range comprehensive plans for the subject property. These plans include Horizon 2020, the Northwest Plan, and the Area Plan for the Intersection Area of West 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive. The rezoning request helps facilitate the implementation of all three plans.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request of approximately 25.214 acres from A (Agricultural) District to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) based upon the findings of fact presented in this staff report, and forwarding of this rezoning to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:
COMMISSION ITEMS:
Commissioner Hack updated the City Commission on her attendance at the National League of Cities meeting in Washington D.C. She suggested that the City Commission might want to visit Washington D.C. at a time when the Commission could have more time to meet with Kansas representatives and senators.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Highberger, to adjourn at 8:45p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
David M Dunfield, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Site Plan – (SP-01-02-04) deferred, N Town Business Park, N 2nd, N of Lyon.
2. Bid – Golf Course Maintenance & equipment lease purchase price of $98,674.70; lease purchase agreement for $25,076.34; and core harvester for a total of $27,876.34 (see CC minutes)
3. MACPP Cooperative Bid – 1 single axle truck for $58,996.
4. Bid – Rehab project for 407 Elm to Old Home Depot for $11,535.
5. Bid – Replace West Hills pump at Kaw Water Treatment Plant to Layne Western for $31,750.
6. Contract – Increase dollar amount for CAS’s Construction, Lime Residuals Project for $13,127.18.
7. Bid – 1 front load refuse truck to American Equipment for $120,805 & warranty for $1,109.
8. Bid – 2 rear load refuse tucks to Roy Conley for $197,102.
9. Bid – 1 mini rear load refuse truck to Roy Conley for $67,741.
10. Ordinance No. 7752 – 2nd Reading, Rezone (Z-12-51-03) 8.83 acres, M-1 & PID-1 to PRD-2, N of W 15th & E of Research Pk Dr.
11. Ordinance No. 7747 – 2nd Reading, Benefit District max assessment for Orchards Golf Course.
12. Ordinance No. 7759 – 1st Reading, designate Congressional Dr, between W 6th & Overland, within corporate limits.
13. Ordinance No. 7760 – 1st Reading, designate Overland Dr, between Wakarusa & Queens, within corporate limits.
14. Final Plat – (PF-11-21-03) Sedlock Addition, Lot 22 & vacated 11th St in Western Hills Suburban Rancheros Sub.
15. Rezone – (Z-01-01-04) 8.761 acres from RS-1 to RS-2, E of Monterey Way & N or Stetson.
16. Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-12-11-03) Delaware Commons, Delaware between E 12th & E 13th.
17. Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-01-01-04) Pine Ridge Plaza, 3106 S Iowa.
18. Annex Request – 160 acres, S of DG Count Jail.
19. TSC – deny “no parking” alone E side of Crestline between Clinton Pkwy & 24th Terr.
20. TSC – deny “”multi-way stop” intersection of 3rd & Locust St.
21. Mortgage Release – 816 Connecticut
22. Sesquicentennial Commission – Naming Sesquicentennial Point located near Clinton Lake.
23. City Manager’s Report – Police Traffic Units
24. Ordinance No. 7758 – 1st Reading, move parking E side of Avalon to W side of 9th & Cambridge.
25. Rezone – (Z-11-38-03) 12.3 acres, from PCD-2 to M-1, NW corner of Legends & Research Pk extended.
26. Ordinance No. 7755 – 1st Reading, Rezone (Z-06-18-03) 19.199 acres fro PCD-2 with restrictions with PCD.
27. Ordinance No. 7756 – 1st Reading, Rezone (Z-06-19-03) 18.938 aces from A to PCD-2, NE Corner of W 6th & Wakarusa.
28. Ordinance No. 7757 – 1st Reading , Rezone (Z-06-20-03) 25.214 acres from A to PCD-2, NW corner of W 6th & Folks.
29. Ordinance No. 7761 – 1st Reading, Repeal bldg permit moratorium.
30. Findings of Fact – Ordinance 7755 (Z-06-18-03); Ordinance No. 7756 (Z-06-19-03); Ordinance No. 7757 (Z-06-20-03)