LAWRENCE-DOUGLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 17, 2004
Chairman Burress called the meeting to order on March 17th at 6:35 p.m. Other Commissioners present: Angino, Schenewerk, Eichhorn, Haase, Johnson, Jennings, Lawson, Schachter and Student Commissioner Bittenbender
Staff present: Finger, Day, Guntert, Patterson, Dyer and Saker.
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the minutes of the February 2004 meeting as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
ZAC: The Committee did not meet.
TAC: The Committee did not meet.
SPC: The Committee did not meet.
CPC: The Committee did not meet
RPC: The Committee did not meet. Chairman Burress appointed Comm. Eichhorn to this Committee.
RFC: The Committee did not meet.
CDSC: The Committee had met every two weeks to compile ideas of desirable design standards for all kinds of development. A Smart Growth Network Grant would bring a consultant to Lawrence in April and several information-gathering meetings would be held on April 1st & 2nd. It was suggested that the CDSC members should include and architect, and potential candidate recommendations for this position should be forwarded to the Committee Chair, Comm. Schachter.
PCMM: The Mid-Month meeting was converted to an extension of the February 2004 agenda meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Finger outlined the following communications:
Item 5 – Text Amendment to County Floodplain Regulations
Item 6 – Text Amendment for County Communication Towers
Item 7 – CIP proposals
Maps per Study Session discussion
General Miscellaneous
Mike Keeney of Landplan Engineering, the applicant’s representative for Items 8A – 8G, responded to questioning that he would prefer to proceed with the annexation request (8A), even if the other Items (8B – 8G) were deferred.
It was noted that the City Commission had initiated a Study Session to discuss sewering and other infrastructure needs for this area. The date for this session was not yet determined, but it would occur at such a time that the soonest the deferred Items (8B - 8G) could reappear before the Planning Commission would be May 2004.
Mr. Keeney suggested the Commission also hold the project in process for the Kitsmiller property until infrastructure decisions were made.
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to defer Items 8B – 8G until sewer capabilities were known, an Area Plan was complete and the governing bodies provided needed guidance for the zoning and development of the area.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative.
DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE / DECLARATION OF ABSTENTIONS
· No ex parte communications were disclosed
· No abstentions were indicated
· Item 1 was pulled from the Consent agenda for consideration at the end of the regular agenda
ITEM NO. 1: FINAL PLAT FOR LAKE POINTE ADDITION; NORTHEAST CORNER OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND K-10 HIGHWAY (SLD)
PF-02-07-04: Final Plat for Lake Pointe Addition. This proposed multi-family residential and commercial subdivision contains approximately 29.7261 acres and is located north of Clinton Parkway and east 926’ from K-10 Highway (SLT). Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Lake Pointe Addition, LLC, contract purchaser, and Yankee Tank Investors, Yankee Tank Investors, L.C., and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record.
This Item was pulled from the Consent Agenda and considered at the end of the regular agenda.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the Item, explaining the applicant had requested the Item be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order to request removal or modification of some of Staff’s recommended conditions.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, asked to address conditions 4 & 5, which required submission of a public improvements plan before a Final Plat could be filed. He said this was a standard condition and was typically not a problem. However, in this case the typical order of procedure would delay the formation of a benefit district for the improvements at Lake Pointe Drive & Clinton Parkway and would also delay the close of the contract purchase.
Greg DiVilbiss also spoke on behalf of the applicant, asking the Commission to remove condition 3, which prohibited access to Clinton Parkway (a principal arterial). He asked that access restrictions be left off the plat until a traffic study was done that would determine whether this type of restriction was appropriate, or if the southern access to Clinton Parkway was needed to serve the proposed development.
Mr. Keeney explained ways in which traffic on this section of Clinton Parkway would travel slower than normal and would make an access point less inappropriate.
It was suggested that allowing the requested access change would be a significant alteration from the Preliminary Plat and proper procedure would be to require a revised Preliminary Plat prior to approval of this Final Plat. Since the applicant was anxious to get the benefit district underway, Mr. Keeney said he would prefer to move ahead with the current Final Plat and replat later if the Clinton Parkway access was a “deal breaker” for the property owner.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Ms. Day said Staff had no objection to removing conditions 4 & 5, explaining the agreements were already signed, but had not been executed.
Regarding condition 3, Ms. Day said concern about this arterial access was expressed by the City’s Engineer, Traffic Engineer, Traffic Planner and KDOT. In Staff’s opinion, it was unlikely a traffic study would support this arterial curb cut. Furthermore, one of the original curb cuts in this segment of Clinton Parkway had been eliminated because of the high speed of traffic in the area. Sight-distance and proximity to the SLT access ramps were issues of additional concern.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was suggested that, although this plat solved several traffic problems previously identified for this area, removing condition 3 would be inappropriate for several reasons, including non-conformance with the Preliminary Plat and violation of several adopted documents.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the Final Plat for Lake Pointe Addition and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following revised conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
Motion carried unanimously 9-0, with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative.
The Commission proceeded at this point to the Miscellaneous section of the agenda.
ITEM NO. 2: FINAL PLAT FOR MONTEREY SUBDIVISION NO. 8; WEST OF MONTEREY WAY AND NORTH OF STETSON DRIVE (SLD)
PF-02-08-04: Final Plat for Monterey Subdivision No. 8. This proposed 33-lot residential subdivision contains 11.7 acres and is located west of Monterey Way and north of Stetson Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A. for Michael D. Stultz, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Lawson and seconded to approve the Final Plat for Monterey Subdivision No. 8 and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. MEBO’s for all lots adjacent to a drainage easement;
b. Increase the DE width to 20’ on Lot 1, Block 1, per City Stormwater Engineer approval;
c. Revise Final plat to clearly label the 25’ DE on Lot 10, Block 2; and
d. Provision of a 10’ UE centered between Lots 1 & 2 and Lots 12 & 13, all in Block 2.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda. Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voted in the affirmative.
ITEM NO. 3A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR STONEGATE IV ADDITION; NORTH OF PETERSON ROAD AND EAST OF MONTEREY WAY (EXTENDED) (SLD)
PP-01-02-04: Preliminary Plat for Stonegate IV Addition. This proposed 105-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 40.39 acres and is located north of Peterson Road and east of Monterey Way (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for North Stephens, L.C., property owners of record. This item was deferred from the February Planning Commission Meeting.
ITEM NO. 3B: FINAL PLAT FOR STONEGATE IV ADDITION; N. OF PETERSON ROAD AND E. OF MONTEREY WAY (EXTENDED) (SLD)
PF-01-05-04: Final Plat for Stonegate IV Addition. This proposed 105-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 40.39 acres and is located north of Peterson Road and east of Monterey Way (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for North Stephens, L.C., property owners of record. This item was deferred from the February Planning Commission Meeting.
Items 3A & 3B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the Items, the Preliminary and Final Plats for Stonegate IV Addition, reminding the Commission they had approved concurrent submission of these plats. She noted the conditions had been revised to state that no building permits would be issued until Monterey Way improvements were complete. This restriction had originally been applied to occupancy permits, but revised because occupancy permits were not issued for residential uses.
Staff recommended approval of both the revised Preliminary and Final Plats with the conditions stated in the Staff Reports.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, said the applicant had no additional information to present beyond the Staff Reports and had no objections to the conditions recommended by Staff.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 3A
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the revised Preliminary Plat for Stonegate IV Subdivision.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Johnson said she would not support the plats with their existing layout because the Comprehensive Plan specifically stated that alternate, more flexible design plans (cluster housing, larger lots) should be used for areas with sensitive topographic concerns. She did not feel the presence of similar existing development in the area was a good enough reason to approve another subdivision that did not comply with this Comprehensive Plan intent.
Comm. Schachter said he agreed with Comm. Johnson in theory that this was not the ideal design model for the subject property, but felt the area was “already lost”. He hoped the Commission would have an opportunity to address these concerns earlier in the process for future developments on ground with similar topographic challenges.
Chairman Burress said this specific property was more topographically challenged than the rest of the area, but the Building Code was not adequate to deal with this type of development. He suspected the structures placed on the steeper section of the subject property would be unstable in the future, but said that was not a planning issue.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the revised Preliminary Plat for Stonegate IV Subdivision.
Motion carried 7-2, with Comm.’s Angino, Lawson, Eichhorn, Schachter, Schenewerk, Jennings and Haase voting in favor. Comm.’s Johnson and Burress voted in opposition and Student Commissioner Bittenbender voted in the affirmative.
Item 3B
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the Final Plat for Stonegate IV Subdivision and forward it the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of a revised preliminary plat;
2. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the Final Plat for filing;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
c. Provision of a master street tree plan;
d. Provision of street sign fees; and
e. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2;
3. Execution of the following agreements:
a. Temporary Utility Agreement; and
b. Agreement stating no building permits shall be issued until Monterey Way is constructed and accepted by the City;
4. Submittal of public improvement plans to the City Public Works Department prior to filing of the Final Plat for streets, sidewalks, water and wastewater improvements;
5. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include:
a. MEBO’s for all lots adjacent to a drainage easement;
b. Note on the face of the plat stating. “Soils investigations shall be performed before primary structures are erected on lots with slopes greater than 3:1, or on lots with non-engineered fill greater than 12 inches. A soils engineer licensed by the State of Kansas shall perform investigations, and a report of the investigation shall be submitted to the City of Lawrence Codes Enforcement Division of the Neighborhood Resources Department. Other lots may be required to be investigated where excavation reveals indications of unsuitable conditions”; and
c. Note on the face of the plat stating, “No building permits shall be issued until Monterey Way is constructed and accepted by the City.”
Motion carried 8-1, with Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Burress, Haase, Schachter, Schenewerk, Lawson and Jennings voting in favor. Comm. Johnson voted in opposition and Student Commissioner Bittenbender voted in the affirmative.
ITEM NO. 4A: REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FARMLAND NORTHWEST ADDITION; SOUTH SIDE OF K-10 HIGHWAY WEST OF O’CONNELL ROAD (SLD)
PP-08-10-03A: Revised Preliminary Plat for Farmland Northwest Addition. This proposed single-family residential, multi-family residential, and residential and office subdivision contains approximately 55.447 acres and is located south of K-10 Highway, west of O’Connell Road. Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.L.C., property owner of record.
ITEM NO. 4B: FINAL PLAT FOR FARMLAND NORTHWEST ADDITION; SOUTH OF K-10 AND WEST OF O’CONNELL ROAD (SLD)
PF-12-23-03: Final Plat for Farmland Northwest Addition. This proposed residential and office subdivision contains approximately 53.8931 acres and is located south of K-10 Highway and west of O’Connell Road. Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.L.C., property owner of record. This item was deferred from the February Planning Commission meeting.
Items 4A & 4B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day explained the revised Preliminary and Final Plats of Farmland Northwest Addition had been redesigned per Staff’s understanding of the Commission’s direction following the final public hearing in February 2004. Public Works and KDOT were aware of the changes and had expressed no objections.
Staff recommended approval of the revised Preliminary Plat and the Final Plat with conditions as listed in the Staff Report.
Staff presented for the benefit of the public the revised street connection design and explained the rationale for connecting to 24th Street Terrace while leaving 24th Street ‘stubbed’. Staff responded to questioning that it was still their opinion that both streets should be connected, because connectivity was important and isolation was not an appropriate long-term solution for the area.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, was present to answer questions on behalf of the applicant but had no additional information for the Commission.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was discussed that the Commission had chosen the one-connection option as a compromise between Staff’s initial recommendation that both 24th Street and 24th Street Terrace be connected and the requests of the residents of the adjacent subdivision, Anderson Acres, that both streets remain closed.
It was noted that the proposed plat would provide an opportunity for the eventual removal of an undesirable existing curb cut on K-10 highway (west of the plat).
ACTION TAKEN
Item 4A
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the revised Preliminary Plat for Farmland Northwest Addition, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Report.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MOTION
Although this was not a public hearing Item, Comm. Angino asked a member of the public to comment on the proposed connection of 24th Street. Eldon Statler, 1908 E. 24th Street, said he would prefer 24th Street remain unconnected to prevent traffic from “dumping” into Anderson Acres. He said the area already faced traffic problems generated by the strip mall on (the north side of) 23rd Street.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the revised Preliminary Plat for Farmland Northwest Addition, subject to following conditions:
1. Provision of an executed agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district at K-10 and O’Connell Road for geometric and traffic signal improvements;
2. Provision of an executed agreement to vacate the gas line easement or provision of an encroachment agreement to cross gas line and to go under power line;
3. Provision of a note on the face of the preliminary plat that states; “Public improvement plans shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits for Lots 1-3, Block 1 and Lots 19-39, Block 4;
4. Execution of an agreement to specify the location and responsibility in the placement and removal of a temporary pump lift station in the SE corner of the subject property; and
5. Provision of a note on the face of the preliminary plat that states “Additional drainage easements shall be provided by separate instrument on Lot 3, Block 1 when that lot is site planned.”
Motion carried 8-1, with Comm.’s Eichhorn, Burress, Schachter, Schenewerk, Lawson, Jennings, Haase and Johnson voting in favor. Comm. Angino voted in opposition and Student Commissioner Bittenbender voted in the affirmative.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
Comm. Schachter explained for the benefit of the public that the neighborhood residents had followed the correct process by being involved and making their objections known from the beginning. The next step was the City Commission’s consideration of acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, which would be the determining factor in whether or not 24th Street and/or 24th Street Terrace were connected.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 4B
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the Final Plat for Farmland Northwest and forwarding it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the Final Plat for filing;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Provision of a master street tree plan and filing fee.
2. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for:
a. Street and sidewalk improvements for 25th Street; and
b. Intersection improvements for 25th Street and O’Connell Road.
3. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
4. Provision of a revised stormwater drainage plan per the City Stormwater Engineer’s approval prior to recording of the Final Plat with the Register of Deeds Office;
5. Submittal of a public improvement plan for streets, sidewalks, water and waste water improvements to the City Public Works Department prior to filing of the Final Plat;
6. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include the following notes:
a. “Soils investigations shall be performed before primary structures are erected on lots with slopes greater than 3:1, or non-engineered fill greater than 12 inches. A soils engineer licensed by the state of Kansas shall perform investigations, and a report of the investigation shall be submitted to the City of Lawrence Codes Enforcement Division. Other lots may be required to be investigated where excavation reveals indications of unsuitable conditions;” and
b. “The City is hereby granted a temporary right of entry to plant the required street trees pursuant to Chapter 21, Article 7, Section 21-708a of the City Subdivision regulations.”
7. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include the following corrections:
a. Correct title in Curve Data Table;
b. Correct spelling of Acknowledgement Title Block; and
c. Provide revised street names for Royal Drive and Anna Court per City Staff approval.
8. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21- 302.2.
Motion carried 8-1, with Comm.’s Eichhorn, Burress, Schachter, Schenewerk, Lawson, Jennings, Haase and Johnson voting in favor. Comm. Angino voted in opposition and Student Commissioner Bittenbender voted in the affirmative.
ITEM NO. 5: TEXT AMENDMENT TO FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS FOR DOUGLAS COUNTY (BPD)
TA-12-05-03: Text Amendment to Floodplain Regulations in the County. Consider amendments to Article 28 of the Douglas County Zoning regulations regarding Floodplain Management Regulations. Initiated by Planning Commission. This item was tabled from the January Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Dyer introduced the Item, which was a proposed amendment to the County Floodplain Regulations. Comments received from the Commission and the public at the January 2004 Planning Commission meeting had been incorporated into the revised document.
Mr. Dyer drew the Commission’s attention to the new language proposed for Sec 28-5(3)b that required a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMR) before an occupancy permit could be issued.
Staff supported the unanimous recommendation of the Special Projects Committee for approval of the revised Floodplain Regulations as presented. Staff also recommended the Commission initiate rezoning of all VC (Valley Channel) property to A (Agricultural) and eliminate the VC Zoning District from the Zoning Code.
It was verified that agricultural buildings were made exempt from the Hydrologic & Hydraulic Study (H & H) requirement in both the text and definition section of the regulations. These buildings were not, however, exempted from the rest of the Floodplain Regulations.
Comm. Angino expressed concern that the stated boundaries of the H & H Study were too vague and suggested a specific distance should be included to define “an adequate distance”. Staff pointed out that the proposed phrasing matched the text of the existing City Floodplain Regulations.
Mr. Dyer provided an overview of the process for building a new structure in the floodplain or floodway, including what information was provided by an H & H Study and the order of the required permits.
It was clarified that the proposed language would not allow a building permit to be issued until/unless a LOMR was obtained.
PUBLIC HEARING
Ed Collister, 3311 Clinton Parkway Court, explained he was speaking on behalf of Pat Ross, who was not able to attend the meeting. Mr. Collister said Mr. Ross was concerned about the impact the proposed text amendment would have on his farming business. He explained that agricultural buildings were defined as those not requiring a building permit. Therefore, if the County added a building permit requirement for these buildings, it would nullify their exemption from the H & H Study requirement.
Given the number of residential homes built in the relevant area in the last 10 years, Mr. Collister said it was not a pressing matter to regulate the agricultural uses or their accessory buildings in this area.
Mr. Collister said the proposed language dealt with structures but not land and asked if this meant an agricultural building would be allowed, but a farmer would have to get a permit before he plowed a field?
Mr. Collister said these regulations were being developed primarily for residential development in the Urban Growth Area, which was not realistically the use that would develop in this area. He said agricultural businesses should not have to “go through development hoops” like a residential developer in the city.
It was noted that much of the proposed language was pulled directly from the FEMA regulations and the City had to comply with these standards in order to remain eligible for Federal Flood Insurance. Mr. Collister said it was unfair to penalize agricultural users in order to protect residential development.
Asked to summarize his concerns, Mr. Collister said he was afraid the new regulations would require agricultural users to take on expenses that were unrelated to their use. He was also concerned with the possible legal repercussions if rules were violated.
Staff pointed out that much of the proposed language was identical to the Floodplain Regulations that had been in place since 1981 without causing significant detriment to agricultural uses or buildings. The H & H Study requirement was an addition, but it applied only to residential development and fill, both of which would have to do this study as a matter of course.
Mr. Collister said the definition of “development” was changed in the proposed text. Staff provided the 1981 language and said the text was unchanged. Mr. Collister asked why the text amendment was needed if nothing was changing?
Mr. Collister was asked to provide an example of a potential negative impact on farm uses. He replied this would be “anything that makes them do something new or different or makes them do an additional study or test”.
It was again clarified that definitions pulled from the Federal Regulations was not subject to local modification or review. Individual communities could apply more stringent standards, but could not approve more lenient regulations without losing their flood insurance eligibility.
It was established that Mr. Collister wanted to ensure agricultural uses were exempt from the H & H Study requirement, and would like accessory buildings (shops for working on equipment, fuel supply areas, and even residences for the agricultural users) considered as agricultural buildings, thus exempting them from the H & H Study requirement as well.
It was suggested that a more effective way to handle this concern would be to forward a comment to the Board of County Commissioners about the issue of building permits for agricultural buildings.
John Selk, Landplan Engineering, spoke on his own behalf, saying he supported the language as proposed, with “occupancy permit” in place of “building permit”.
Regarding the issue of a Conditional LOMR, Mr. Selk said – in his personal experience – this was a waste of valuable development time. He pointed out a LOMR did not automatically absolve the property owner from the flood insurance requirement.
Asked about the possibility of unusable structures when a LOMR was denied for a constructed building, Mr. Selk described how the various permits and studies fit into the County development process and stated that an H & H Study was always required in the County floodplain, even if a LOMR was obtained. He said he had never encountered this situation and there was no reason it would ever occur if the project were properly engineered.
It was clarified that a structural LOMR removed that structure from the regulatory floodplain. This did not automatically eliminate the need for flood insurance. It would not violate federal regulations if a building permit was given based on an H & H Study and proper elevation certification for development in the floodway fringe. This had been the process since 1981.
It was discussed that elevation certificates for City projects were sometimes delayed or not obtained because there was no procedure in the City to ensure this was done once a building permit was issued. Staff explained the County separated foundation permits from building permits and therefore the elevation certificate process was followed more closely.
Since these regulations applied only to the County, the elevation certification process was seen as a non-issue.
Mr. Selk responded to questioning that he had no concern with the proposed language about an “adequate distance” for the H & H Study or “no rise” in the Base Flood Elevation.
JD Yanek, Builder Realtor Coalition, said the organization appreciated the attention given to these regulations and supported the text amendment as proposed.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments form Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was verified that, in the City, there was more concern about getting a certificate of elevation, and the LOMR was not the City’s major concern unless a developer was asking to remove a large section of ground from the floodplain. LOMR’s were of more use to the property owner, potentially eliminating their flood insurance requirement, but also benefited the City through the federal rating point system.
The Commission reviewed several points:
Mr. Selk was allowed to add that he had never been asked to certify elevation of anything except a residence, even though individual lenders had the option of requiring it.
Comm. Schachter made several comments for the record:
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the text amendment to the Douglas County Floodplain Regulations as revised per the meeting’s communications and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Mr. Dyer explained upon questioning that the Valley Channel (VC) zoning designation was the most restrictive category, allowing construction of only recreational buildings and farm dwellings (which were not defined). Staff recommended removal of this designation because its location and boundaries did not appear to be based on any supported data.
Staff agreed that rezoning the VC designated areas to Agricultural could result in additional development in the subject area through use of the 5-acre exemption. However, it was noted that the majority of the area was within the UGA and or the floodplain, where the 5-acre exemption was not applicable.
It was suggested more rural controls should be in place before getting rid of the VC designation. It was countered that it was unfair to continue applying an “arbitrary and capricious” zoning designation.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to initiate and schedule a public hearing in May 2004 for rezoning all VC (Valley Channel) land to A (Agricultural) zoning.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative.
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to initiate and schedule a public hearing in May 2004 for removal of the VC (Valley Channel) zoning designation from the County Zoning Regulations.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative.
ITEM NO. 6: TEXT AMENDMENT TO COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS REGARDING COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS LESS THAN 100’ IN HEIGHT (Keith Dabney/SLD)
TA-02-01-04: Consider text amendment to the County Zoning Regulations regarding communication towers less than 100’ in height. Initiated by the Board of County Commissioners.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the Item, a proposed amendment to the County Zoning Regulations that would add a property owner notice requirement for new communications towers in the County owner 100’ in height. After deliberation, the County had chosen a one-mile radius for the notice area.
The amendment also included a provision for Administrative Approval for co-location of antennas on existing County towers.
A revised Staff Report had been provided with clarifying language per Study Session discussion, including a revision to text regarding multiple-carrier design for towers over 150’.
Staff had verified with the County Zoning Administrator that the large signage size had been purposely chosen for readability at a distance and to be consistence with sign requirements in the Agricultural Zoning District.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Keith Dabney, the County Zoning Administrator, was not able to attend the meeting.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed and agreed upon wording revisions for the requirement that towers over 150’ have capacity for multiple carriers’ antennas.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Ms. Day reminded the Commission that they had the ability to add site-specific conditions to new towers, as these structures would still required approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Lawson and seconded to approve the Text Amendment to the County Zoning Regulations and forward them to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, with the changes proposed by staff and the following additional change:
Section 31(c)3
All
towers of 100 feet or greater in height shall be designed to accommodate at
least three communication providers/carriers. for every 50 feet in height
above 100 feet. The above requirements may be modified to provide the
maximum number of compatible users within the radio frequency emissions
levels.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative.
Chairman Burress called a 10-minutes recess.
ITEM NO. 7: RECEIVE PROPOSALS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS (DRG)
Receive suggestions and/or proposals from the public, Fire & Medical Department, Police Department, Parks and Recreation Department, and City Manager’s Office for projects to be included in the 2005-2010 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for the City of Lawrence.
STAFF PRESNTATION
Mr. Guntert introduced the first part of the 2005 - 2010 Capital Improvements Projects list. The document had been split into two sections this year for manageability, and the second section would come before the Commission in April 2004.
The first section included projects from various City Departments, as well as those projects suggested during public hearings. Of the 34 projects in this section, ten were identified to begin in 2004-2005, based on the financial feasibility of completion within 12 months. The remaining projects had been spread over the next five years of the project list.
Mr. Guntert explained a few projects included in the 2005-2010 list were more likely to occur after 2010, but were included to keep them “active”.
Staff revised the tables and maps per Study Session discussion, giving an ID code to each project and carrying these codes over to the maps to identify the location of each project. Maps were also provided showing fire station coverage, based on a 4-minute response time, for existing conditions and with the proposed new stations.
Staff recommended approval of the first section of the 2005-2010 CIP, based on the determination that all projects were in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Schachter said he planned to limit his comments to land use issues, although the “inadequacy of the process” would need to be discussed at a later date. He said it was apparent from the coverage maps that more fire stations would be needed in the Urban Growth Area.
Park land was discussed, noting that much of the land already acquired was not located suitably for park land, based on the criteria stated in the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission was pleased that acquisition of new park land would now come before them for review.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Lawson and seconded to approve the first section of the 2005 – 2010 Capital Improvements Projects list and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the determination that all projects were substantially in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was verified that the word “substantially” would be included in the record.
Comm. Burress stated he would vote against the motion because he did not feel the Commission had a substantive basis for determining conformance.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the first section of the 2005 – 2010 Capital Improvements Projects list and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the determination that all projects were substantially in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Motion carried 7-2, with Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Haase, Schachter, Schenewerk, Lawson and Jennings voting in favor.
Comm.’s Burress and Johnson voted in opposition and Student Commissioner Bittenbender voted in the affirmative.
ITEM NO. 8A: ANNEXATION OF 119.8964 ACRES; SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY BETWEEN O’CONNELL ROAD AND FRANKLIN ROAD (SLD)
A-12-14-03: Annexation request for approximately 119.9 acres of land, located south of K-10 Highway, between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road. Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.L.C., property owners of record.
STAFF PRESTENATION
Ms. Day introduced the proposed annexation, which was submitted in combination with several rezoning requests and a Preliminary Plat that were deferred unanimously at the beginning of the meeting. Deferral was chosen because the subject area was east of O’Connell Road in an area that would require significant infrastructure improvements.
In Staff’s opinion, the City Commission needed to have additional discussion to provide policy direction regarding phasing of sewer capacity and other infrastructure needs before any development projects were allowed to proceed.
Staff recommended approval of the annexation, with an understanding that this did not commit the City to a specific density for sewering or an immediate timeframe for infrastructure construction.
It was clarified that it was feasible to extend sewer service to the subject area within a reasonable time, so annexation was appropriate at this time. However, it was not yet determined how much sewer could or should be constructed, so further development considerations that were dependent upon how much sewer was approved for the area should be delayed until these questions were answered.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Bill Newsome, Eastside Acquisitions, said he had hoped to address the rezonings for residential development and Preliminary Plat at this meeting. He felt discussion about the issues identified by Staff were “far enough along” that the submitted requests could be conditionally approved. The applicant was therefore not completely in agreement with Staff’s recommendation for deferral of everything except the annexation, but Mr. Newsome said they would be prepared to return in May 2004 with all questions answered to Staff’s satisfaction.
Mr. Newsome did not think there was concern about the ability to sewer the subject area at the proposed density. The question was how these improvements would be financed and how long they would take.
Mr. Newsome said the applicant(s) took issue with some of the density assumptions in the adopted Wastewater Master Plan and would come forward later with a proposal for what they believed was an appropriate density and use of the land.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve annexation of approximately 119.8964 acres generally located on the south side of E. 23rd Street and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised legal description to include the adjacent public rights-of-way of E. 23rd Street/K-10 Highway and O’Connell Road/E1600 Road; and
2. Adoption of an Area Plan that includes the subject property prior to publication of the Annexation Ordinance.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was noted for the benefit of the applicant that the newly-adopted Commercial Chapter of Horizon 2020 stated appropriate land uses for the subject property and that these would make the currently-proposed C-5 zoning inappropriate.
It was also discussed whether it was appropriate to annex land without knowing what city zoning designation the area would have. RS-1 was used in the past as a ‘holding zone’ for newly annexed land but had proved problematic. Retaining the A (Agricultural) zoning upon annexation was considered appropriate because the new zoning code, nearing adoption, would convert this designation to UR (Urban Reserve). The UR category was designed specifically as a holding zone designation.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve annexation of approximately 119.8964 acres generally located on the south side of E. 23rd Street and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised legal description to include the adjacent public rights-of-way of E. 23rd Street/K-10 Highway and O’Connell Road/E1600 Road; and
2. Adoption of an Area Plan that includes the subject property prior to publication of the Annexation Ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative.
ITEM NO. 8B: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FARMLAND NORTHEAST ADDITION; SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY BETWEEN O’CONNELL ROAD AND FRANKLIN ROAD (SLD)
PP-12-14-03: Preliminary Plat for Farmland Northeast Addition. This proposed single-family residential, multi-family residential, light industrial, and commercial subdivision contains approximately 119.9 acres and is located south f K-10 Highway between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road. Staff recommended deferral of this Item and no Staff report was provided.
ITEM NO. 8C: A TO RS-2; 33.3692 ACRES; SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY BETWEEN O’CONNELL ROAD AND FRANKLIN ROAD (SLD)
Z-12-44-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 33.3692 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located south of K-10 Highway, between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road. Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.L.C., property owners of record. Staff recommended deferral of this Item and no Staff report was provided.
ITEM NO. 8D: A TO RMD; 39.4204 ACRES; SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY BETWEEN O’CONNELL ROAD AND FRANKLIN ROAD (SLD)
Z-12-45-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 39.4204 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RMD (Duplex Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located south of K-10 Highway, between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road. Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.L.C., property owners of record. Staff recommended deferral of this Item and no Staff report was provided.
ITEM NO. 8E: A TO RM-2; 26.2863 ACRES; SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY BETWEEN O’CONNELL ROAD AND FRANKLIN ROAD (SLD)
Z-12-43-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 15.2863 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located south of K-10 Highway, between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road. Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.L.C., property owners of record. Staff recommended deferral of this Item and no Staff report was provided.
ITEM NO. 8F: A TO M-1; 17.1220 ACRES; SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY BETWEEN O’CONNELL ROAD AND FRANKLIN ROAD (SLD)
Z-12-46-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 17.1220 acres from A (Agriculture) District to M-1 (Research Industrial) District. The property is generally described as being located south of K-10 Highway, between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road. (Legal description is on file at the Planning Office.) Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.L.C., property owners of record. Staff recommended deferral of this Item and no Staff report was provided.
ITEM NO. 8G: A TO C-5; 26.6436 ACRES; SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY BETWEEN O’CONNELL ROAD AND FRANKLIN ROAD (SLD)
Z-12-47-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 26.6436 acres from A (Agriculture) District to C-5 (Limited Commercial) District. The property is generally described as being located south of K-10 Highway, between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road. Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.L.C., property owners of record. Staff recommended deferral of this Item and no Staff report was provided.
The Commission voted unanimously, 9-0, at the beginning of the meeting to defer Items 8B – 8G. Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voted in the affirmative.
ITEM NO. 9A: RS-1 TO M-2; 3.59 ACRES; 601 N. IOWA STREET, WEST OF NORTH IOWA (PGP)
Z-02-02-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 3.59 acres from RS-1 (Single-Family Residential) District to M-2 (General Industrial) District. The property is generally described as being located at 601 N. Iowa Street, formerly Riverside School). Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for Unified School District 497, property owner of record.
ITEM NO. 9B: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR NORTH IOWA ADDITION; 601 N. IOWA STREET, WEST OF NORTH IOWA (PGP)
PP-02-04-04: Preliminary Plat for North Iowa Addition. This proposed office subdivision contains approximately 3.259 acres and is located at 601 N. Iowa Street. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Doug Compton, First Management Corp., contract purchaser and Unified School District #497, property owner of record.
Items 9A & 9B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the rezoning and Preliminary Plat for the proposed North Iowa Addition. He explained the existing RS-1 zoning was given as a placeholder to the subject area upon annexation. The new zoning Code would provide an actual ‘holding district’ for this purpose (UR – Urban Reserve).
In Staff’s opinion, the proposed M-2 zoning was appropriate for the subject area and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding area.
Public Works had indicated three sidewalks would be needed in specified locations, and public improvements plans for the plat would be delayed to coincide with the Site Plan that would go before the City Commission in the near future.
Mr. Patterson explained how the required 100’ of right-of-way on Iowa Street would be attained. He also noted that the City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer had both stated that access to North Iowa Street should be restricted to the subject property.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning and the Preliminary Plat, with the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
It was discussed that there was no intent to replace the existing stop sign with a traffic signal at the intersection of North Iowa and Kresge Road.
The Commission expressed concern about the proximity of the Kresge Road access points to the Iowa Street intersection. Mr. Patterson said conditioning this aspect at the plat stage would restrict flexibility in site layout and design. He suggested this element be left for detailed consideration at the Site Plan stage
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Keeney, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant, pointing out the zoning map showed the proposed zoning was appropriate for the area.
Mr. Keeney addressed the difficulty of access with reuse, showing how modification of the existing circle drive would work with the applicant’s proposed design for reusing the vacated Riverside School for construction/corporate offices. He asked the Commission to consider removing conditions 1b & 1c, thus allowing the property to retain one of the two existing curb cuts onto Iowa Street.
Mr. Keeney responded to questions about possible design access/site layout without curb cuts on Iowa Street and discussed potential problems with the intersection.
PUBLIC HEARING – on rezoning only
Rick Gammill, Director of Special Operations for the School District, was present to speak on behalf of Randy Weisman, Superintendent of USD 497 Schools. He gave Mr. Weisman’s apologies, explaining the need for the Superintendent to concentrate on legislative issues at this time.
The School District had been attempting to sell the subject property since Riverside School closed in 2003. There had been little interest until the applicant’s offer, and the School District was anxious that nothing hinder this sale.
Mr. Gammill described the type and intensity of traffic associated with the Riverside School, stating there had been few if any traffic safety issues. In Mr. Gammill’s opinion, it would be acceptable to allow the applicant to retain the single requested access point on Iowa Street since the proposed reuse would generate less traffic. He responded to questioning that he was not sure that loss of the Iowa access would jeopardize the sale, but he “did not like to take that chance”.
Mr. Keeney noted the existence of several curb cuts existing up and down North Iowa, saying that traffic in this area was sparse and slow-moving compared to other arterial streets. He added that the proposed use would generate less traffic than the previous school use.
Mr. Patterson reminded the Commission that North Iowa is classified as a principal arterial, and the new code would state that no individual lot should be allowed direct access.
The Commission was asked to keep in mind the potential redevelopment of the entire area, not just the existing development and traffic. It was established that this area was designated primarily for industrial development.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was suggested that the Commission had been granting exceptions (to the curb cut restriction) over the last several years, and it would be more appropriate to uphold the restriction if code-compliant access was possible.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 9A
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the rezoning of 3.59 acres from RS-1 to M-2 and forward it to the City Commission with recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative
Item 9B
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the Preliminary plat for N. Iowa Addition, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submission of a revised preliminary plat to include the following:
a. Increase the Utility Easement for this property along the west property line to a width of 15’;
b. Remove access to N. Iowa Street and add the following note, “There will be no direct vehicular access to/from N. Iowa Street”;
c. Provide graphic detail showing that this lot will have no direct vehicular access from N. Iowa Street;
d. Remove the notes and graphic details on proposed access from Kresge Road, as the number and location of access(es) will be determined with the future site plan;
e. Remove the note stating “Existing curb cut to be relocated as denoted on this plan”;
f. Add to the General Notes or modify the sidewalk note, that sidewalks will be installed as part of the future site plan improvements; and
g. Show existing street trees along Iowa Street and Kresge Road.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative.
At this point the Commission dealt with Item 1, which was pulled from the Consent Agenda at the beginning of the meeting.
MISC. ITEM NO. 1: OLD BUSINESS
A. Revision to PC By-laws to clarify ex parte communication related to commissioner-to-commissioner contacts.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Finger explained the proposed amendment to the newly adopted Planning Commission By-Laws to clarify the intent of the ex parte restriction in relation to site-specific discussion between individual Commissioners.
In addition to the language presented, Staff intended to add a section to the By-Laws outlining the Kansas Open Meetings Act.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was suggested that providing an ability to share ideas, without an intent to influence or sway opinion, was a common business practice and not inappropriate in the “business of planning”.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino and seconded to approve the By-Law revisions regarding the ex parte restriction as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative.
MISC. ITEM NO. 1: OLD BUSINESS
B. FDP-06-09-03: Hutton Farms (formerly known as Tuckaway North); NW corner of Kasold & Peterson – Requested waiver from 10’ building separation per Sec. 20-1006(d)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day explained the applicant was requesting a waiver from the 10’ building separation requirement to bring newly-built structures into compliance. The Final Development Plan was approved with a different kind of structure than had ultimately been built, and the applicant had indicated his client’s understanding that the reduced separation had been approved as part of that Development Plan. Staff stated this was not the case and explained the newly built structures now met the Building Code but did not meet wither the Zoning Code or the approved Final Development Plan.
It was verified that the PUD waiver provision allowed for a side-yard reduction down to 0’.
Staff explained the car wash shown on the plan was also being modified from the approved Final Development Plan and was included in the proposed changes.
In response to questioning, Staff stated that – given a ‘clean slate’ – they would have recommended maintaining a 10’ building separation throughout the development. Staff had no recommendation for the current situation, but noted the Code provided a process for addressing mistakes of this nature.
It was discussed that denying the request would result in a court case that would likely be returned to the City with direction to solve the problem internally through a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, outlined the series of misunderstandings that led to this problem. He pointed out that exchanging duplexes for single-family homes was usually seen in a positive light.
It was established that the concrete was poured for all of the unapproved buildings and the waiver would not apply to any other structures. These buildings were all intended as rental properties.
Regarding the car wash, Mr. Werner explained a larger footprint was needed for the equipment chosen. It was verified that no waiver would be needed for the car wash. The change in building square footage was being included only because it differed from the approved Final Development Plan.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission added to their Parking Lot list a discussion about recommending the City Commission create a penalty provision for this type of situation.
It was noted that the construction of single-family detached housing where multi-family had been approved opposed the Comprehensive Plan’s intent that multi-family structures provide a transition area along major roads.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Lawson and seconded to approve a wavier to allow a reduction in the required building separation from 10’ to 4’6” for the identified structures.
Motioned by Chairman Burress to amend the original motion to direct a vote of censure against the builder. Motion died for lack of a second.
Motion on the floor was to approve a wavier to allow a reduction in the required building separation from 10’ to 4’6” for the identified structures.
Motion carried 7-2, with Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Schachter, Schenewerk, Lawson, Jennings and Johnson voting in favor.
Comm.’s Haase and Burress voted in opposition and Student Commissioner Bittenbender voted in the affirmative.
Motioned by Comm. Angino and seconded to approve the revised Final Development Plan for Hutton Farms.
Motion carried 8-1, with Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Schachter, Schenewerk, Lawson, Jennings, Burress and Johnson voting in favor.
Comm. Haase voted in opposition and Student Commissioner Bittenbender voted in the affirmative.
MISC. ITEM NO. 2: THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT (LMF)
The Commission received this report as part of their packet materials
MISC. ITEM NO. 3:
Ms. Finger asked the Commission to consider possible dates for a joint meeting with the City Commission to discuss the sewer and infrastructure issues identified for Southeast Lawrence. April 22nd or May 5th were indicated as possible dates for a meeting in the City Commission meeting room at 9:00 a.m.
ADJOURN – 10:05 p.m.
Official meeting minutes are on file in the Planning Department Office.