LAWRENCE-DOUGLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION
City Commission Room, City Hall, 6 E. 6th Street
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004
__________________________________________________________________
Chairman Haase called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Other Commissioners present: Burress, Angino, Eichhorn, Erickson, Riordan, Lawson, Jennings, Krebs and Student Representative Brown
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Patterson, Tully, Day, Ahrens and Saker
__________________________________________________________________
AGENDA
Comm. Burress asked to pull Item 1 from the Consent Agenda.
Comm. Riordan asked to pull Item 2B from the Consent Agenda.
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the August 25, 2004 minutes as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting favor.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
ZAC: The Committee did not meet
TAC: The Committee met twice to discuss the Peterson Road extension and the Public Improvements Plan for Lawrence Transit. Recommendations for both issues were forwarded to the Planning Commission and were included on this month’s agenda as Items 17, 18 & 19. The Committee also discussed transportation issues related to the Southeast Area Plan, which was deferred from this month’s agenda.
CPC: The Committee met twice to discuss the Southeast Area Plan and the draft Industrial chapter of HORIZON 2020. Four action plan proposals were under review and the Committee expected to return a recommendation to the Planning Commission in October.
RPC: The Committee met twice to reconcile feedback from the first draft of the Rural Land Use chapter of HORIZON 2020. A second draft was forthcoming.
CDGC: The Committee did not meet.
PCMM: The Commission met on September 8 to discuss the draft Parks, Recreation & Open Space chapter of HORIZON 2020. The Commission expressed several concerns and decided to create a new ad hoc committee to review the chapter in depth. The new committee was comprised of Comm.’s Johnson (Chair), Eichhorn and Krebs. The Commission also discussed the draft Southeast Area Plan and directed Staff to defer this issue from the September agenda to October.
PCMM II: The Commission met on September 16th at the Lawrence Memorial Hospital auditorium and began their review of the proposed draft City/County Subdivision Regulations.
Comm. Krebs arrived at 6:35.
COMMUNICATIONS
Staff outlined the following communications:
Item 2B – Final Development Plan for Oakley Addition No. 2
Misc. 1A – Reconsideration of Preliminary Plat for Raeta Subdivision
Misc. 1B – Issues of Process
General
CONSIDERATION OF DEFERRAL REQUESTS
Commission agreed without objection to deferring Item 15 as discussed at Study Session.
DECLARATION OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS / INDICATION OF ABSTENTIONS
The Consent Agenda was approved unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 1: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SHERYLVILLE ESTATES; 1600-1800 RIVERRIDGE ROAD (SLD)
PP-06-16-04: Preliminary Plat for Sherylville Estates. This proposed 19-lot single-family rural residential subdivision contains approximately 5.63 acres and is located between 1600 – 1800 Riverridge Road. Submitted by EBH & Associates, P.A., for Blevco, Inc, contract purchaser, and Amy M. Brockman, Megan S. Heibert, and Arvilla M. Lee, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the August Planning Commission meeting.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress asked staff to respond to communication from the Merritt/Broat property owners on north side of Riverridge Road. These property owners expressed concern about a utility easement near the subject property, providing photographs or an open ditch and exposed gas line, presumably created by soil erosion.
Ms. Day explained the subject property was outside the city limits, so maintenance of the road and the utility easement would potentially be shared by several parties, including the property owners, the gas company, and Wakarusa Township. The County Surveyor was looking into the neighbors concerns within the week. Staff agreed these were issues that needed to be addressed regardless of proposed development.
Comm. Burress noted that the Commission had the ability to require elimination of both the existing curb cuts on Riverridge Road. He stated for the record that the Commission was not inclined to make that recommendation, based on Staff’s statement at the Study Session that the road would not be traveled heavily enough to warrant the removal of both existing cuts.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Jennings to approve the Preliminary Plat for Riverridge Estates, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised Preliminary Plat to add the following notes and changes:
a. Add note and show access restriction Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 to Riverridge Road and remove existing driveway to Riverridge and reconstruct curb, gutter and sidewalk along north side of Lot 1, Block 1;
b. Provision of a note that states: Access to Riverridge Road from Lots 7 and 8, Block 2 shall be limited to a single shared access along the common lot line upon redevelopment of either lot;
c. Dedication of a 25’ access easement along the common Lot line a minimum distance of 45’;
d. Label pump station between Lots 15 and 16, Riverridge Run Addition;
e. Provide drainage easements for the storm sewer per the approval of the City Stormwater Engineer; and
f. Provision of a revised preliminary plat to show the MEBO for any lot adjacent to a drainage easement.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
ITEM NO.2A: FINAL PLAT FOR OAKLEY ADDITION NO. 2; SOUTH OF W. 6TH STREET AND WEST OF FOLKS ROAD (PGP)
PF-08-23-04: Final Plat for Oakley Addition No. 2. This proposed planned residential development contains approximately 14.47 acres and is located west of Folks Road approximately 400 feet south of W. 6th Street. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for First Management, Inc., property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino seconded by Comm. Riordan to approve the Final Plat for Oakley Addition No. 2 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. 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. Traffic sign costs of $715.00 will need to be paid prior to recordation of the final plat; and
d. Provision of a completed master street tree plan.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
ITEM NO.2B: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR OAKLEY ADDITION NO; 2; SOUTH OF W. 6TH STREET AND WEST OF FOLKS ROAD (PGP)
FDP-08-13-04: Final Development Plan for Oakley Addition No. 2. This proposed residential development includes 68 multiple-family units and 34 single-family homes on approximately 14.47 acres. The property is generally described as being located west of Folks Road approximately 400 feet south of W. 6th Street. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for First Management, Inc., property owner of record.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was verified that the pool and clubhouse amounted to 5% of the total common open space calculated for the subject area. The property could provide the required 20% open space without counting these amenities, although their inclusion in the overall calculation was permitted by code.
Staff responded to questioning by referring the Commission to the revised Staff Report page stating modified conditions. These changes addressed the concern expressed by the League of Women Voters that the development plan was not clear about the location of specific housing types.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the Final Development Plan for Oakley Addition No. 2 with revised wording per Staff, subject to the following conditions:
3. Execution of an Agreement Not to Protest a Benefit District for Folks Road and Old Oak Court;
4. Execution of a Site Performance Agreement; and
5. Provision of the following modifications to the general notes:
a. For note No. 23, “Occupancy of the detached single-family dwelling units (Block 1, Lots 1-24 & Block 2, Lots 1-10) shall be subject to the definition of family in RS zoning districts per Section 20-2002.5(1)(a); and
b. Add the following note, “Occupancy of the multiple-family units is contingent on completion of all site improvements for the multiple-family portion of the development.”
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 3: This item has been moved to Item No. 9 because of a public hearing needed for a variance.
ITEM NO. 4: FINAL PLAT FOR GREEN TREE SUBDIVISION; NORTH OF HARVARD ROAD AND EAST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (SLD)
PF-08-24-04: Final Plat for Green Tree Subdivision. This proposed 76 lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 26.7 acres and is located north of Harvard Road and east of George Williams Way. Submitted by BG Consultants, Inc., for Fairway, L.C., property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino seconded by Comm. Riordan to approve the Final Plat for Green Tree subdivision and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
a. Agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for street, sidewalk and intersection improvements for both Harvard Road and George Williams Way.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda. Student Commissioner Brown voted in favor.
ITEM NO. 5: FINAL PLAT FOR SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH; SOUTH OF W. 6TH STREET (HIGHWAY40) WEST OF E 1000 ROAD (QUEENS ROAD) (JLT)
PF-08-25-04: Final Plat for Seventh Day Adventist Church. This proposed church site contains approximately 5.312 acres and is located south of W. 6th Street (Highway 40) and west of E 1000 Road (Queens Road). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Kansas/Nebraska Association of Seventh Day Adventist Inc, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino seconded by Comm. Riordan to approve the Final Plat for Seventh Day Adventist Church 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:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda. Student Commissioner Brown voted in favor.
ITEM NO. 6: FINAL PLAT FOR FOX CHASE SOUTH NO. 2; A REPLAT OF LOTS 8-14, BLOCK NINE, AND LOTS 1-7, BLOCK TEN, FOX CHASE SOUTH; EAST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY AND SOUTH OF HARVARD ROAD (EXTENDED) (SLD)
PF-08-26-04: Final Plat for Fox Chase South No. 2, a replat of lots 8-14, Block nine, and lots 1-7 Block ten, Fox Chase South. This proposed single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 3.450 acres and is located east of George Williams Way and south of Harvard Road (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Devco, Inc., property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino seconded by Comm. Riordan to approve the Final Plat for Fox Chase South No. 2 and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance 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;
c. Provision of a master street tree plan; and
d. Pinning of the lot in accordance with section 20-103 of the Subdivision Regulations.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda. Student Commissioner Brown voted in favor.
ITEM NO. 7: RS-1 TO RS-E; 88 LOTS IN WESTERN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD (JLT)
Z-08-41-04: A request to rezone property in Western Hills Neighborhood from RS-1 (Single-Family Residential) District to RS-E (Single-Family Residence Estate) District. The 88 lots are located in the Western Hills Subdivision. Initiated by the City Commission on August 24, 2004.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully introduced the item, a request created by some area residents to rezone the entire neighborhood from RS-1 to RS-E. These residents wanted to restrict lot splits by applying the minimum lot size requirements of the estate zoning district because they were concerned that recent lot splits were creating a pattern that would significantly alter the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Tully presented a map showing the 58 property owners that made the original request to the City Commission. When initiating the rezoning at the request of these 58 owners, the City Commission increased the subject area to 88 lots, involving multiple subdivisions. Two additional lots within the subject area had been split, resulting in a total of 90 lots, nine of which are unplatted. With the current RS-1 zoning, approximately 10-25 of the 90 subject lots could be subdivided.
Staff had broken the 90 subject lots into three general categories:
Mr. Tully described the conflicting interests of property owners who wanted to retain the large-lot character of the neighborhood, versus those who wanted to retain their ability to split their property. He referenced sections of the Comprehensive Plan that spoke about the use of estate categories in “sensitive areas” of the UGA. It was noted that the subject area was annexed in the 1980’s with significant resistance from the property owners. The original development intent, prior to annexation, had been for large-lot development and this request was based on retention of that character.
Mr. Tully gave an overview of the letters received from the public, pointing out that some letters came from property owners outside of the subject area. Two letters were received from the property owners at 4211 W. 13th Street and 1221 Monterey Way, asking that their lots be removed from the rezoning request. Mr. Tully explained Staff’s position on each of these requests:
4211 W. 13th Street – this lot is unplatted and abuts two different zoning categories. The lot takes access off W. 13th Street. The lot is not adjacent to any other RS-1 zoned land, so allowing the lot to retain its current RS-1 zoning would constitute spot zoning according the development code definition. Staff could not support a recommendation for allowing 4211 W. 13th Street to retain RS-1 zoning, but suggested the property owner seek RS-2 zoning to match the property to the west. Splitting the lot according the RS-2 restrictions would be possible if 13th Street were extended from the west.
1221 Monterey Way – this property is platted and is one lot away from a recently split lot. The lot would be surrounded on three sides by RS-E zoning if the rezoning were approved. “Dad” Perry Park is across the street and currently has RS-1 zoning, but the parkland will be rezoned to OS (Open Space) when the new code is adopted in early 2005. Staff could support a decision to remove 1221 Monterey Way from the rezoning application, based on a claim that it did not (yet) meet the technical definition of spot zoning.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request including all 90 of the proposed lots.
Staff answered several questions from the Commission:
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
The City initiated this application, so there was no applicant presentation.
PUBLIC HEARING
Kristen Howick, 1221 W. 13th Street, said she opposed the rezoning because it would prevent her from capitalizing on the investment she had made in her property. She asked if the City or the neighborhood was willing to compensate her for that loss. She said it was not fair that larger lots would still be able to subdivide and that this proposal would interfere with her ability to “get rid of [her] property when it goes on the market next week.”
Carl Locke, 1331 Ranchero Drive, said he supported the rezoning because he wanted to preserve the character that was in place when he bought his land, and he saw that character changing with every lot split. Mr. Locke said he taught Economic Engineering and he would like to present his students with the problem of figuring which option resulted in the most economic benefit – splitting the land into multiple parcels or leaving the parcel intact.
Ed Sloan spoke as the legal representative for a several property owners in support of the rezoning. Mr. Sloan said he expressed the view of the “majority” of the area’s residents; they wanted to maintain their “oasis” in the center of Lawrence and did not want new subdivisions inside the neighborhood. Approximately 15 people responded to Mr. Sloan’s request that all those present in favor of the rezoning stand and be recognized.
Mr. Sloan noted again that the area was annexed with estate-sized lots and that annexation was not voluntary. He said the Commission should take notice any time there was a significant amount of neighborhood activism, including those properties directly affected by the rezoning and those outside the subject area.
Mr. Sloan responded to questioning that he had not had an opportunity to talk to his clients about the exceptions as requested (1221 W. 13th Street & 4211 Monterey Way), but he did not foresee any significant opposition to the exclusion of these two border properties.
Ron Helmick, 4130 W. 12t Street, asked those Commissioners who were “on the fence” to remember their own childhood memories of playing outside in open space and fresh air.
Teresa Rew, 3910 W. 12th Street, said her property was diagonally adjacent to the recently approved R.L. Subdivision and that this land division had a negative impact on the area. She purchased her own land prior to annexation and was drawn to the area because of its open space. She asked to preserve the ability of kids to play in large yards and to maintain privacy without fences.
Fred McElhaney, 3920 W. 13th Street, said he had “done battle with the Planning Commission many times” during his 41 years in this neighborhood. He said Lawrence tried to “sell itself” on its neighborhoods and this one had a very specific character similar to Old West Lawrence and others that got a lot of publicity.
Mr. McElhaney commented that he was “appalled” by the appearance of the recently subdivided land at 1201 Monterey Way. He did not think this development was appropriate as a gateway to the neighborhood. He said he would “hate to think of the whole area developed like Kasold & Peterson… with homes an arms width apart.”
Mr. McElhaney supported the preservation of greenspace in neighborhoods said that any action but approval for the rezoning request would create a “dangerous precedent” for the area. He said it was not in the City’s best interest to encourage the development of “small, cramped houses that do not contribute to the quality of life or the reputation of city.”
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Tully explained the Monterey Way property would have difficulty meeting the minimum subdivision requirements of either RS-E; although the lot is just over 40,000 square feet in size, it is not wide enough to meet the requirements and division would result in another curb cut on a collector street (Monterey Way).
Comm. Burress asked Staff to speak about the legal implications of spot zoning. Mr. Tully replied that spot zoning was contrary to HORIZON 2020, and any action of that nature would “erode the validity of the Comprehensive Plan”. Planning Staff was not qualified to say whether such an action would weaken a court case.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Angino agreed with the statement that the area was not annexed willingly and he verified the neighborhood currently had a “park-like” environment. He referenced Staff’s analysis that 4211 W. 13th Street would have difficulty dividing even under the current zoning, and that leaving 1221 Monterey Way as RS-1 would constitute spot zoning. Comm. Angino said the Comprehensive Plan had a provision for this kind of development and he would support the rezoning of all 90 lots as presented.
Comm. Burress stated the purpose of the zoning ordinance was to maximize total value. He believed that overall rezoning would do this, creating the best value for the City as a whole, although it would negatively impact the property value of a few individuals. He discussed the fact that the code does not provide a way to repay those individuals for their loss.
It was verified that a number of lots would still be able to divide with RS-E zoning, but the number of times lots could divide was reduced, based on minimum lot size in the new zoning district. This would result in an overall reduction in the potential development density of the area.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Jennings to approve the rezoning of 90 lots from RS-1 to RS-E 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.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 8: A TO B-2; 7.04 ACRES; NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY. 56 & HWY. 59 (JLT)
Z-07-29-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 7.04 acres from A (Agricultural) District to B-2 (General Business) District. The property is generally described as being located north of U.S. Highway 56 and east of U.S. Highway 59. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Frontier Farm Credit, ACA, contract purchaser, and Jerold W. and Janet K. Seele property owner of record. This item was deferred from the August 25, 2004, Planning Commission meeting.
Comm. Lawson was recused.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully introduced the Item, a rezoning request that was deferred from the August meeting at Staff’s request in order to gather more information on the request and how the addition of commercial space at the existing commercial node would impact the intersection and the Baldwin City UGA.
Mr. Tully described the surrounding area - its zoning and existing business, commercial and service activities. He showed the subject area in relation to the Baldwin City UGA/city limits and the existing commercial node at the 56/59 Highway intersection.
Staff had confirmed with KDOT that the alignment of the 56/59 interchange would relocate the intersection as much as 200’ to the east of its current location, taking up much of the existing commercial node and the property between that node and the subject property. A small section of the subject property would also be used as a frontage road.
Mr. Tully noted the natural barriers near the intersection made expansion of a commercial node a challenge, showing that development would be most appropriate on the northeast (subject area) and southeast corners of the intersection.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning, based on the opinion that it was consistent with the goals and policies of HORIZON 2020.
In response to Study Session questions, Mr. Tully said the size the entire commercial node would be limited to 15,000 gross square feet. This rezoning request encompassed 7.04 acres and was limited to a single use. The Commission asked how many acres would be needed to support commercial development of this size. Staff explained this depended on the specific commercial or service use and several other factors.
Baldwin City representatives expressed no opposition to the request, and were pleased at the prospect of having this use near the gateway of their city.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, and Tony English, Frontier Farm Credit, were present to answer questions. They agreed with the Staff recommendation and had no additional comments.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress asked if an area plan had been part of the review for this request. He said he would like to have the design concept shown in the current proposal specifically noted in the Commission’s action as the preferable development design for the node.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress to adopt Concept #3 as shown in the Staff Report as the preferable development design for the commercial node and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
Chairman Haase asked if the Commission would be out of order taking action on a plan that was not publicly noticed. In Staff’s opinion, this was not an issue because the concept plan was part of the published rezoning request.
Ms. Finger confirmed that the motion was meant to accept the potential mirroring of northeast corner with commercial development on the southeast corner.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to adopt Concept #3 as shown in the Staff Report as the preferable development design for the commercial node and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. Comm. Jennings seconded.
Motion carried 8-0-1, with Comm. Lawson recused and Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the rezoning of 7.04 acres from A to B-2 and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners 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:
Motion carried 8-0-1, with Comm. Lawson recused and Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
Meeting reconvened at 8:10 p.m.
ITEM NO. 9: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOCUST STREET PROJECT; 642-646 & 645 LOCUST STREET (PGP)
PP-08-19-04: Preliminary Plat for Locust Street Project. This proposed two-lot commercial subdivision contains approximately 0.58 acre. The property is generally described as being located at 642-646 and 645 Locust Street. Submitted by Taylor Design Group, P.A., for D & D Rental, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a preliminary plat for an area approved for rezoning last month. The City Commission had approved C-5 zoning for the subject area, which was pending publication of the ordinance.
Staff explained the right-of-way requirements for collectors and local streets on various sides of the subject area. The project involved a number of variances that would be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals, which was typical for commercial redevelopment. However, this was the first plat of the property so a number of variances were considered by the Planning Commission as well. Among these were a reduction in lot depth, width and area, and the provision of less than ½ of the total street right-of-way for a collector.
In Staff’s opinion, this plat would assist in developing the inner neighborhood commercial center identified for this area in HORIZON 2020.
Mr. Patterson clarified which existing buildings would be retained in their entirety or in portions. The property owner would have to sign a right-of-way encroachment agreement with the city for small encroachments by existing buildings on N. 7th Street.
The Commission discussed that the property would go unused if the variances were not granted, which met the Commission’s definition of hardship. The situation also met the criteria stating that the need for a variance did not result from an action of the current property owner.
It was suggested that it would be arbitrary and capricious interference with the applicant’s basic right to the subject property, because the development pattern was established before the development code was adopted.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Lance Adams, Paul Werner Architects, agreed with the majority of the Staff Recommendation on behalf of the applicant. He asked for one modification to the recommended conditions of approval. If the street right-of-way variance were approved for 70’ instead of 75’, the amount of actual space would not change. 5’ would be designated as a pedestrian/utility easement so the applicant could retain two extra parking spaces. If 75’ street right-of-way were required as per Staff, the sidewalk would remain in the same place but two parking stalls would be lost because of parking lot setback requirements.
It was clarified that conditions 1-3 were written based on 70’ right-of-way as requested by the applicant. If condition 4 remained as stated, then conditions 1-3 would have to be changed. If condition 4 were changed to require 70’ instead of 75’, no other conditions would have to be changed.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Patterson said the City Engineer preferred 75’ right-of-way in anticipation of future street improvements, but did not foresee any significant problems with requiring 70’ instead.
Staff recommended making a decision about the right-of-way request first, so the rest of the conditions could be modified if need be.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was verified that the City Engineer had no significant opposition to allowing only 70’ of right-of-way, and that precedent for granting this variance was set by previous actions related to development that occurred prior to adoption of the code.
It was suggested that the Commission take separate action for the requested variances.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Jennings to approve the following revised variances:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was noted that, with the 70’ right-of-way as approved, a new condition must be added to the plat for a 5’ pedestrian/utility easement
The Commission asked Mr. Adams to clarify the applicant’s concerns about the plat. Mr. Adams explained that the surveyor missed a manhole when making the original plat. Consequently, the current plat was conditioned to extend sewer service to Lot 1, Block 1. It was now seen that a sewer connection might be possible within 5’ of the property line. Mr. Adams asked the Commission to revise condition 1a. to allow the applicant to work with the Public Works Department to attach the sewer to the main. This would allow the exploration of connection alternatives with City Staff.
Staff expressed no opposition to this proposed change.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Jennings to approve the Preliminary Plat for the Locust Street Project, subject to the following revised conditions:
The Commission gave unanimous consent to revise the motion on the floor to allow the applicant to work with the Public Works Department on connection to the sanitary sewer system.
Motion on the floor was to approve the Preliminary Plat for the Locust Street project, subject to the following re-revised conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
At this point the Commission moved to Item 11.
ITEM NO. 10A: A TO RS-2; 0.9997 ACRE; EAST SIDE OF FOLKS ROAD (EXTENDED), SOUTH OF W. SIXTH STREET (PGP)
Z-07-30-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 0.9997 acre from A (Agricultural) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located on the east side of Folks Road, south of W. Sixth Street. Submitted by The Peridian Group for Eric L. and Colleen Hodge, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the August 25, 2004, Planning Commission meeting.
Staff asked to discuss 10A separately because it was a public hearing item.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson described location of subject property and surrounding uses and zonings. He explained the adjacent property with RS-2 zoning was approved in August 2004 and was held by the same applicant making this request.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning, subject to the one condition listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Keeney, speaking on behalf of the applicant, agreed with the staff recommendation and had no additional comments.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the rezoning of .9997 acres from A to RS-2 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 condition:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 10B: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HODGE SUBDIVISION; EAST SIDE OF FOLKS ROAD (EXTENDED) SOUTH OF W. SIXTH STREET (PGP)
PP-07-17-04: Preliminary Plat for Hodge Subdivision. This proposed residential subdivision contains approximately 2.0635 acres and is located on the east side of Folks Road, south of W. Sixth Street. Submitted by The Peridian Group for Eric L. and Colleen Hodge, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the August 25, 2004, Planning Commission meeting.
ITEM NO. 10C: FINAL PLAT FOR HODGE SUBDIVISION; SOUTHWEST CORNER OF W. SIXTH STREET AND FOLKS ROAD (PGP)
PF-07-19-04: Final Plat for Hodge Subdivision. This proposed residential subdivision contains approximately 2.0635 acres and is located on the east side of Folks Road, south of W. Sixth Street. Submitted by the Peridian Group, Inc., for Eric L. and Colleen M. Hodge, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the August 25, 2004, Planning Commission meeting.
Items 10B & 10C were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson described the subject area as “ready to move forward” with development, noting the slope of the property and the placement of sewer and water lines. He said a benefit district was anticipated for improvements to the collector street (Folks Road), and the plat showed the acquisition by benefit district of 30’ of right-of-way, with an additional dedication of 10’ with the final plat.
Mr. Patterson said the request stemmed from the applicant’s wish to build a new house on the southern lot, and that the new regulations required that all contiguous property held by the same owner be platted simultaneously.
Concurrent submission of the preliminary and final plats was permitted in this case because the subdivision created lots of less than one acre, did not dedicate multiple street rights-of-way and did not involve more than one zoning classification.
Staff’s primary concern with the plat(s) was access to Folks Road. The lot had access to the collector, which Staff recommended should be moved to become a shared access to Folks Raod with the adjacent lot. Staff was amenable to allowing the property owner to temporarily retain the existing access point until the adjacent lot was developed, at which point the temporary access to Folks Road would be eliminated.
Staff recommend approval of both the preliminary and final plats with conditions as listed in the Staff Reports. Mr. Patterson clarified that alternate conditions were provided in case the Commission chose to approve the permanent retention of the existing Folks Road access as requested by the applicant.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Kenney, Peridian Group, spoke on behalf of the applicants, addressing Staff’s recommendation for shared access to Folks Road when Lot 2 was developed. He showed the current design for the house, noting that this design would have to change significantly to accommodate the shared access proposed by Staff. Mr. Keeney compared the existing access pattern of the six lots leading to the subject property, stating that Staff’s recommended shared access did not follow this pattern and would create problems with the configuration of Folks Road (improved).
Eric & Colleen Hodge, property owners, said they intended to build the proposed house in the center of the lot and did not plan to develop Lot 2. They had submitted a site plan with a driveway to the south, and said they would like to keep this design to maximize the front yard area and retain existing mature trees that would have to be removed to create the shared access proposed by Staff.
The Hodges felt they had “met the city halfway” by dedicating land for right-of-way and taking part in the benefit district for Folks Road improvements. They planned to construct their house in the center of the lot, restricting future development on the adjacent lot.
Mr. Hodge suggested future access could be protected by conditioning a replat of the property if development of the northern lot were proposed in the future.
The Hodges discussed Peridian’s suggestion that shared access be created between the adjacent lot they owned and the lot adjacent to its north, if development were ever proposed. It was noted that this depended on the redevelopment intent of another property owner. The applicant would have to dedicate land from their northern lot now, in anticipation of future shared access. If the next lot to the north was not redeveloped (providing the second half of the joint access) the subject property owner would have adequate driveway space on their own property.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Jennings noted that this application attempted to create the large-lot development that had been the intent of a previous consideration. He noted that allowing the shared access to “slide to the north” did not involve any more curb cuts than the design proposed by Staff.
The Commission discussed the design proposed by Mr. Keeney, which involved a cul-de-sac through the applicant’s two lots and the lot adjacent to the north. It was suggested that it was presumptive to assume the other property owner would agree to this design.
Comm. Lawson said he would like to reciprocate the applicant’s attempts to work with the city regarding the Folks Road improvements. He said Staff had provided alternate conditions in response to the applicant’s request and he assumed Staff would be able to support approval of those conditions.
The Commission discussed potential traffic generation with various access designs.
Chairman Haase asked why the shared access issue was not resolved between the applicant and Staff before the meeting. Staff replied that, in general, their solution was to require redesign of the house to use shared access and the applicant was not amenable to this suggestion.
It was suggested that the Commission should not support the applicant’s proposal for shared access with the property to the north because achieving this design was not within the applicant’s complete control; it assumed the cooperation of the adjacent property owner.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 10B
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Burress to approve the Preliminary Plat for Hodge Subdivision with shared access as proposed by Staff, subject to the following conditions:
Motion failed, 3-6, with Comm.’s Krebs, Burress and Haase voting in favor. Comm.’s Angino, Lawson, Eichhorn, Erickson, Riordan and Jennings voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Brown voted in opposition.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Preliminary Plat for Hodge Subdivision, subject to the following condition:
Motion carried 8-1, with Comm. Krebs voting in opposition and Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
It was clarified that the Final Plat could be approved on the basis that it did conform to the Preliminary Plat just approved, with the understanding that, if Lot 2 were proposed for development in the future, it would need to dedicate half the required right-of-way as shown on the plat for shared access with the property to its north.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 10C
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Final Plat for Hodge Subdivision 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:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
The Commission returned at this point to Item 9.
ITEM NO. 11A: PCD-2 (WITH RESTRICTIONS) TO PCD-2 (WITH NEW RESTRICTIONS); 1.33 ACRE; SOUTHEAST CORNER OF W. 6TH STREET AND COMET LANE (PGP)
Z-08-33-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 1.33 acre from PCD-2 (with restrictions) (Planned Commercial Development) District to PCD-2 (with revised use restrictions) (Planned Commercial Development) District to include auto sales in an enclosed building. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of W. 6th Street and Comet Lane. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for David A. and Lisa L. Rueschhoff, property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 11B: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 6th & MONTEREY PCD, FOR REVISIONS TO PHASE C-1A; SOUTHEAST CORNER OF W. 6TH STREET AND COMET LANE (PGP)
PDP-08-08-04: Preliminary Development Plan for 6th & Monterey PCD, for revisions to Phase C-1A. The commercial development proposes permitting auto sales in an enclosed building. This development contains approximately 20.87 acres. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of W. 6th Street and Comet Lane. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for David A. and Lisa L. Rueschhoff, Space Saver Storage 1, LC, Canyon Court LLC, Comet Corporation, HUNT, Inc., Robert & Beverly Morgan, J-Ville Apartments, Todd N Thompson, and Lawrence Funeral Chapel, Inc., property owners of record.
Items 11A & 11B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson described the subject area and the current use restrictions, explaining the rezoning request was to add one use – new & used automobile sales inside a building – to the list of allowable use for Phase C-1A only. Interior showroom for sales of high-end new & used cars. The outdoor display/storage of vehicles and auto service/rentals would be prohibited. Mr. Patterson outlined the surrounding uses and stated Staff’s opinion that the rezoning would have little impact on the area.
A revised Preliminary Development Plan was required to reflect the use of an un-leased portion of the existing building for the new use. The revised Final Development Plan would be approved administratively.
Staff recommended approval of both items, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report(s).
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, agreed with Staff’s recommendations on behalf of the applicant. He asked to add that all the other properties in the PCD were aware of the proposal, since they were all required to sign an affidavit as part of the site plan process of this property.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on these items.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The commission had no additional questions or comments
ACTION TAKEN
Item 11A
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Lawson to approve the rezoning of 1.33 acres described as Phase C-1A from PCD-2 with restrictions to PCD-2 with revised restrictions to allow the following use 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:
USE GROUP 13. AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES; RETAIL SALES; OTHER
Automobile Sales (new and used) within a commercial building, excluding automobile service and rental and excludes the outside display or storage of vehicles for sale.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
Item 11B
Motioned by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the revised Preliminary Development Plan for 6th & Monterey Way PCD, Phase C-1A, and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 12A: RS-2 TO PRD-1; 1503 HASKELL AVENUE (SLD)
Z-08-38-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 5.57 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District to PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development) District. The property is described as being located at 1503 Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Allen Belot for Harold C. and Caroline B. Shepard, property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 12B: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PARNELL PARK AFFORDABLE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES; 1503 HASKELL AVENUE (SLD)
PDP-08-10-04: Preliminary Development Plan for Parnell Park Affordable Single-Family Homes. This proposed planned residential development contains 35 single-family homes and is approximately 5.57 acres. The property is described as being located at 1503 Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Allen Belot for Harold C. and Caroline B. Shepard, property owners of record.
Items 12A & 12B were deferred prior to the meeting.
ITEM NO. 13: A TO RS-2; EAST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) AND WEST OF STONERIDGE DRIVE (EXTENDED) (SLD)
Z-08-39-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 19.283 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located east of George Williams Way (extended) and west of Stoneridge Drive (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Stoneridge Holdings, L.L.C., contract purchaser, and Alvamar, Inc, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the item, a rezoning request to accommodate development of an odd-shaped piece of ground abutting a gas line easement. A final plat for an adjacent property was approved on the Consent Agenda earlier in the evening. Area residents had expressed concern about the plat process and street issues that would come up with platting.
The majority of the surrounding area was developed with single-family homes, with some multi-family residential zoning west of George Williams Way.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant, stating the Preliminary Plat was submitted earlier that day to meet the submittal deadline for the October meeting. The applicant had worked with Staff regarding the connection of the subject area to the adjacent Green Tree subdivision.
Mr. Herdon said a series of master plans and area plans were approved for this part of the city, and this proposal conformed to a master plan that has been “incrementally implemented” with previous approvals.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the rezoning of 19.283 acres from A to RS-2 and forwarding 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. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 14: RM-1 TO O-1; 1.8807 ACRE; NORTHEAST CORNER OF WAKARUSA DRIVE AND HARVARD ROAD (JLT)
Z-08-40-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 1.8807 acre from RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential) District to O-1 (Office) District. The property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of Wakarusa Drive and Harvard Road. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Mustard Seed Christian Fellowship, property owners of record.
Item 14 was deferred prior to the meeting.
ITEM NO. 15: TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING ADDITION OF EXCAVATION USE TO ALLOW CONDITIONAL USES (PGP)
TA-04-03-04: Consider a text amendment to the County Zoning Regulations to permit limited excavation businesses through a Conditional Use Permit. Initiated by the Planning Commission at their April 28, 2004 meeting. Staff requests Commission deferral to November PC meeting based on public request.
At the beginning of the meeting, Item 15 was deferred with unanimous consent to the November 2004 agenda.
ITEM NO. 16: SOUTHEAST AREA PLAN (SLD)
Conduct a public hearing on the draft Southeast Area Plan. The plan generally includes the area bounded on the north by K-10 (E. 23rd Street); on the west by O’Connell Road (E 1600 Road); on the east by Noria Road (E 1750 Road); and on the south by the Wakarusa River floodplain. The draft plan is available for viewing at the Lawrence/Douglas County Planning Office and at www.lawrenceplanning.org.
Item 16 was deferred prior to the meeting.
ITEM NO. 17: TEXT AMENDMENT TO HORIZON 2020 TO AMEND MAJOR THOROUGHFARES MAPS (BA)
CPA-2004-01: Amend Comprehensive Plan (Horizon 2020) to amend the Major Thoroughfares Maps to show an east-west collector along the general alignment of the extension of Peterson Road west to George Williams Way and to remove an incorrect section of Franklin Road from 31st Street to the SLT from the Major Thoroughfares Maps. Initiated by the Planning Commission at their June meeting.
ITEM NO. 18: TEXT AMENDMENT TO TRANSPORTATION 2025 TO AMEND ROADWAY SYSTEM PLAN AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARES MAPS (BA)
Amend Transportation 2025 (T2025) – Roadway System Plan and Major Thoroughfares Maps (Figures 6.8 & 6.9) to show an east-west collector along the general alignment of the extension of Peterson Road west to George Williams Way and to remove an incorrect section from the Major Thoroughfares Maps, deleting Franklin Road from 31st St. to SLT. Initiated by the Planning Commission at their June meeting.
Items 17 & 18 were discussed simultaneously
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Ahrens explained the intent of the text amendment was to:
1. Create a new east-west collector along an extension of Peterson Road to George Williams Way to relieve traffic congestion on W. 6th Street.
2. Correct an error showing Franklin Road extended between 31st Street and the SLT
Staff responded to Planning Commission direction in 2003 by creating options for a new east-west connection between Folks Road & Wakarusa Drive. The Commission discussed these options but took no action at that time. In July 2004, the Commission resumed discussion and chose one of these options, directing Staff to develop language for a text amendment to HORIZON 2020 and Transportation 2025 to show Peterson Road (extended) as the anticipated east-west connection. The Commission’s decision took into consideration information gathered by Staff about general construction costs and the impact of each proposed alignment on its surrounding area.
Discussions in 2003 resulted in elimination of one of the options because it ran through a conservation easement and would require court action for any kind of development or improvement on that property. An alternate route for a Peterson Road extension was proposed to run just south of the conservation easement, along the line between the easement and city park property. After review of all options, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) chose to recommend the new Peterson Road alignment as presented in the text amendment being considered tonight.
Staff was asked to address the suggestion that a combination of routes would provide the best relief for W. 6th Street. Mr. Ahrens responded that Staff had not been directed to consider a combination of routes, so additional analysis would be needed to make a recommendation on this suggestion.
Estimated constructions costs for each alignment were as follows:
Martin Park Road – $10.6 million
Stetson Drive – $4.7 million
Peterson Road – $8.5 million
Comm. Krebs asked why TAC recommended removing the section of Franklin Road as proposed. Mr. Ahrens said this section was placed on the Major Thoroughfares Map as a connection to the SLT based on early KDOT considerations. Based on the approved environmental impact statement, TAC later recommended this connection be removed, but suggested this wait until land uses and arterial alignments were determined by adoption of the Southeast Area Plan.
Staff responded to several questions from the Commission:
· This is the first time, to Staff’s knowledge, that Peterson Road was proposed as a major thoroughfare to the west.
· Staff has not been directed to attempt to assess the environmental impact of extending Martin Park Road west to Queen’s Road, nor Peterson Road west to Folks Road.
· All three options currently proposed will cut through challenging terrain and some floodplain. Without detailed engineering, construction costs are quite elementary.
· The city would have to hire a consultant to obtain the detailed construction costs and environmental impact information being discussed.
· The Northwest Area Plan anticipated minimal development of the two parcels west of Martin Park Road and found the road system adequate to handle the recommended development density.
PUBLIC HEARING
Alex Anderson, member of Boy Scout Troop 59, explained he had designed, built and mapped a series of walking trails through the conservation easement in order to get his Eagle Scout Badge. This project was approved by the parties involved in the conservation agreement (Kansas Land Trust, Parks & Recreation, previous land owners). Mr. Anderson was concerned that the Peterson Road option would cut off the main entrance to his trail system and would have significant negative impacts on the environment, wildlife and vegetation of the conservation area.
Arthur Anderson, Alex’s father, noted the rough terrain and topographical challenges facing construction in this area. He encouraged the Commission to consider the less expensive route along Martin Park Road, which would also provide needed access to the high school. Mr. Anderson also thought this option would provide a scenic road and would have less impact (noise) since it was close to the turnpike.
Mr. Anderson agreed with Chairman Haase’s suggestion that an east-west arterial was needed and the environmental impact of any alignment would be significant, but that an arterial through the Baldwin Creek Area would be “disastrous”.
Alice Ann Johnson, Chair of the Advisory Board for Lawrence Parks & Recreation, referenced the Board’s letter sent to the Commission. The Board was pleased the city was being proactive in acquiring parkland for passive and active use in advance of development.
Ms. Johnson said the Board had voted to oppose the alignment proposed by this text amendment, but would support either of the other options. She responded to questioning that the Board did not look at environmental impacts on the Baldwin Creek area. She agreed with Chairman Haase’s suggestion that this would be valuable information to have to make an comparable assessment of environmental impacts.
Fred DeVictor, Director of Parks & Recreation, said the City Commission followed the Urban Growth Plan in acquiring parkland for the future. Land choices were “not made in a vacuum” and parkland was being considered in this area as early as 1992. The Parks Department had suggested easements be obtained with the Bauer Brook plat, but this was not done. Comm. Angino asked if the Planning Commission was involved in the decision to acquire parklands. Mr. DeVictor said many city departments were involved, including the Planning Department, but the Planning Commission was not part of the review process.
Mr. DeVictor responded to questioning that he was not prepared to estimate how much it would cost to perform the environmental impact studies being discussed without more information on the scope of those studies.
Bob Lichtwardt, previous property owner of the land now dedicated as a conservation easement, reiterated the challenges facing any kind of development in the conservation area. When he and his wife donated the land to the city for conservation they recognized how fragile the terrain was and the importance of maintaining its character. Mr. Lichtwardt said the city had “agreed with that assessment and had carried out [the Lictwardt’s] retention intent with all plans up to this point.”
It was verified with Mr. Lichtwardt that he was asking the city to protect the land to the south of the reserve as well, since he believed any road near the section line would be as destructive as a road going right through the conservation area. He agreed with the suggestion that moving the road ¼-mile to the south would have a significant beneficial impact in protecting the conservation reserve but thought this alignment would face other problems.
Mr. Lichtwardt responded to questioning that he would support a combination of the northern and southern alignment options as proposed in the letter he and his wife sent to the Commission.
Chairman Haase asked if Mr. Lichtwardt thought Wiggins (Martin Park) Road could be improved as an arterial road without compromising the Baldwin Creek environment. Mr. Lichtwardt suggested this could be done by improving the existing bridge over Baldwin Creek, in combination with the northern alignment option.
Bridgett Chapin of the Jayhawk Audubon Society called attention to the Society’s letter, which favored avoiding the center alignment. The Society was concerned about negative impacts on the cooperative efforts of ECO2. Ms. Chapin said the center alignment “may uphold the letter of the law, but not the spirit”, and support of the center alignment might dampen the enthusiasm for future land donations of a similar nature.
Speaking strictly as a birder, Ms. Chapin described the negative impacts of fragmenting existing ecosystems. She responded to questioning that the Society would support either of the other alignment options. She suggested the least opposition would be toward the Martin Park Road option. She said that ECO2 was formed to deal with finding the best compromise for all those involved.
Alan Black, President of the League of Women Voters’ Land Use Committee, read portions of the League’s letter into the record. He referenced the fact that this issue stemmed from the possibility that Highway 10 would be widened to as many as 8 lanes. Until now, Transportation 2025 had shown N1750 Road connecting to Queens Road to deal with this influx of additional traffic entering Lawrence.
The League questioned the choice of the center alignment without factoring in environmental impacts, cost projections, route combinations or need. The League asked the Commission to take no action until more information was available. Mr. Black was not prepared to estimate the cost of the needed environmental studies.
Comm. Lawson left at 11:00.
Forrest Swall, 1718 E. 1117 Road, said he was not here to tell the Commission which option to choose, but to emphasize the value of the conservation easement. Mr. Swall understood the need to address the traffic issue, but said the conservation easement was “not just another piece of land”. He said the value of the conservation property to the community had not been clearly stated.
Bob Eye spoke as legal representative for Bob & Betty Lichtwardt, Cheryl Varvil and Francis Kelly. His clients agreed that the central alignment was not a good choice. Mr. Eye said that, after hearing the public testimony and the concerns of the public and the Commission, there appeared to be “more questions than answers,” and the Commission did not yet have enough information to determine which alignment would have the most public benefit.
Mr. Eye said he did not hear a strong advocacy for any of the proposed options and he hoped the Commission recognized the weight carried by any recommendation made at this time.
Betty Lichtwardt recommended following up on the suggestion of a past member of the Commission, Myles Schachter, for extending a collector, not an arterial, in addition to the road system shown in HORIZON 2020 and Transportation 2025. She also said the Commission was forgetting about the eastern bypass, which would handle a lot of incoming traffic from the K-10 expansion.
Ms. Lichtwardt recommended the Commissioners reread Transportation 2025, because they were “talking about curing traffic problems with arterials when current transportation planners are using multi-modal transportation plans”. She would like the Commission to “rethink the whole planning system” to design the city around the multi-modal idea. When planning commercial areas, she said the city should think about how crowded streets already were and “please do your homework.”
The Commission agreed unanimously to extend the meeting 30 minutes.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Ahrens reminded the Commission that the proposed text amendment was developed in response to specific Commission direction. The Commission had previously reviewed all three alignments based on the information available and have rejected the northern and southern alignments. He outlined the challenges facing each option:
· Martin Park Road – This is the longest route with the least benefit in terms of relieving traffic on 6th Street
· Stetson Drive – This option is the closest to 6th Street. It is the shortest route and least expensive to construct, but it would create an “arterial loop” with a slight traffic decrease on 6th Street and a significant traffic increase on Wakarusa Drive.
· Peterson Road – Although this route faces significant terrain issues, it was chosen as the route with the best traffic service.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Jennings said the issue must be put in its proper scale; the area in question was larger than the KU campus. He noted the significant traffic issues that resulted because there is no east-west through street between 6th & 23rd Streets. He did not particularly care for the central alignment, feeling it would create more problems than it solved, and suggested the combination of a northern and southern route would be needed to avoid a bottleneck.
Comm. Riordan agreed a north and south combination would be needed when he considered the area fully developed. He did not think there was a marked difference between any of the options in regards to relief for 6th Street, when that was the point of the issue.
Chairman Haase said the Commission appeared to be at a consensus that more information was needed to find the best solution. However, he suggested the city protect the Peterson Road option by taking action today, with the understanding that “a line on the map does not mean the bulldozers begin tomorrow.” He said he would support such a motion because it would “light a fire under the interested parties to work together on a solution.”
Comm. Krebs disagreed, feeling the Commission was too “hesitant” to justify placing one alignment over the others. She suggested supporting all three alignments for equal study. Other Commissioners agreed, but some pointed out that all three options had already been considered and one had been chosen, leading to the text amendment at hand.
The Commission discussed what form the study/studies should take, agreeing they must be more in-depth than the information currently available. Comm. Burress said he was swayed by political arguments, but recognized the Planning Commission did not have the authority to allocate funding for studies. He recommended two alternatives to persuade the City Commission to allocate the needed funds:
1. Pass a resolution (Comm. Burress said this was the “ethical” choice)
2. Approve all three alignments to create political pressure (He thought this was the more “effective” alternative)
It was suggested that a combination of both methods would be appropriate.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 17
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the three routes shown in the Staff Report, known generally as Martin Park Road (extended), Peterson Road (extended), and Stetson Drive (extended) as potential arterial/collector connections on the Major Thoroughfares Map in HORIZON 2020.
Motion carried 5-3, with Comm.’s Burress, Angino, Haase, Eichhorn and Erickson voting in favor. Comm.’s Jennings, Krebs, and Riordan voted in opposition, as well as Student Commissioner Brown.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to pass a Resolution requesting the City Commission establish funds for environmental impact studies, cost estimates and other relevant studies for the three new alignments.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
Item 18
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the three routes shown in the Staff Report, known generally as Martin Parkway (extended), Peterson Road (extended), and Stetson Drive (extended) as potential arterial/collector connections in Transportation 2025.
Motion carried, 7-0-1, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor. Comm. Krebs was absent during the vote.
ITEM NO. 19: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LAWRENCE TRANSIT AND FOR THE LAWRENCE/DOUGLAS COUNTY MPO (BA)
A request to adopt Public Involvement Plans for Lawrence Transit and for the Lawrence/Douglas County MPO. The requirement that public involvement plans be updated was a finding in the federal triennial review of the region’s transportation planning process conducted in July, 2003.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Ahrens explained the federal requirement that the MPO adopt and periodically update a public involvement plan for the MPO and city transit system. The Technical Advisory Committee, City Staff and representatives from KDOT had worked together on the latest update, forwarding the draft as presented to the Planning Commission (acting as the MPO) with a recommendation for approval.
The MPO’s recommendation would be forwarded to KDOT, the Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration. The transit plan would also go to the City Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Chairman Haase pointed out that the signature block incorrectly referenced the Planning Commission instead of the MPO. Staff agreed to make this correction.
Chairman Haase asked if the Planning Commission should not recess and reconvene as the MPO. Ms. Finger said that would not be necessary, as it was understood that the two bodies were identical in membership. It was discussed that membership of the MPO may be changing soon, according to direction from KDOT. If that occurred, the two bodies would have to meet jointly.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the Public Improvements Plan for Lawrence Transit and the Lawrence/Douglas County MPO as presented and forward it to the Kansas Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway and Transit Administrations and the City Commission.
Motion carried
unanimously, 8-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 20: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AUTO DEALERSHIP;
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 33RD STREET AND IOWA STREET (PGP)
PDP-04-02-04: Preliminary Development Plan for an auto dealership. This proposed commercial development contains approximately 0.57 acre. The property is generally described as being located at the southwest corner of 33rd Street and Iowa Street. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, LLC, Will Cokely, contract purchaser, and Richard and Sherryl Wright and Mike and Dr. Carol Moddrell, property owners of record. Deferred by the applicant at the June 23, 2004, Planning Commission meeting
Item 20 was deferred prior to the meeting.
The Commission agreed unanimously to extend the meeting 15 minutes.
MISCELLANEOUS NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
MISC. ITEM NO. 1A: RECONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RAETA SUBDIVISION (PUBLIC HEARING ON VARIANCE REQUEST ONLY) (SLD)
Consider request forwarded by Board of County Commissioners that the Planning Commission reconsider their action to deny the Preliminary Plat for the Raeta Subdivision, 1636 E. 50 Road (northwest corner of County Road 442) [PP-05-12-04, denied by PC 9-0 on 06-24/04]
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day explained the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the rezoning of the subject property in June 2004. The Preliminary Plat was subsequently denied because it would not match existing zoning. The County Commission approved rezoning to A-1 for the subject area for A-1 zoning, and the Planning Commission was now asked to reconsider their action on the Preliminary Plat, based on approval of the A-1 zoning.
Ms. Day reminded the Commission that the subject property could be developed without the proposed plat, based on a land survey currently on file at the Register of Deeds Office. However, without platting, the development would result in a number of curb cuts on a county road with visibility issues.
Staff’s previous concerns were centered on the subject area’s location several miles outside of the Lawrence UGA and its non-contiguity to any other platted subdivision. Other that the land use issue, the plat was in conformance with the subdivision regulations, except for the cul-de-sac running through the center of the parcel. This cul-de-sac exceeded the maximum 1320’ in length, but allowed the creation of a single curb cut for the entire subdivision. A variance was requested to allow a cul-de-sac 2005’ in length.
Although access was a platting concern, not a zoning issue, the County Commission had discussed access at length when considering the A-1 rezoning request. They found it preferable to encourage the reduction in the number of curb cuts by rezoning and platting the property as proposed.
Ms. Day commented that the Comprehensive Plan speaks to the preservation of the agricultural character of this area, but does anticipate some residential development.
It was discussed that grade issues limited the extension of streets and development design. A conventional grid layout would be challenging and would not match the pattern of the larger area. If this were an urban development, Staff would strongly encourage the creation of street connections based on anticipated future development nearby. In this case, Staff did not anticipate additional residential development nearby in the near future and did not want to encourage additional development with typical neighborhood design that provided stubbed streets for future connections.
Staff responded to questioning that a second access on the south property line would exceed the 10% slope maximum and would reduce the amount of open space the current plat tried to preserve.
Chairman Haase compared the variance request for an extended cul-de-sac to one that was denied for the Red Tail Ridge rural subdivision. He asked why Staff recommended denial for the Red Tail Ridge variance but supported this variance request. Ms. Day responded that variances should be considered on a case-by-case basis and Staff’s recommendation for denial of the Red Tail Ridge variance was based on Staff’s opinion that the plat could be redesigned to meet the subdivision requirements. Staff was opposed to encouraging the same development patterns and connections in the subject area (outside the UGA) that were proposed for the Red Tail Ridge property (inside the UGA).
Chairman Haase discussed the criteria that must be met before the Commission could grant a variance, specifically that the strict application of the regulations would constitute undue hardship to the applicant. As defined by the Planning Commission, undue hardship meant that the property could not be developed if the variance were not granted. Another criteria was that the situation could not be created through the action of the applicant. Chairman Haase did not believe the variance request met either of these criteria and therefore should not be granted. He was concerned that contradicting their own definitions and previous actions left the Planning Commission open to claims of arbitrary judgment.
Chairman Haase asked if Staff had talked with the applicant about providing elements to deal with the “serious traffic hazard” posed by adding a curb cut to E. 50 Road (deceleration and acceleration lanes). Ms. Day said Planning Staff was not aware of the status of discussions taking place between the applicant and county public works departments. At the Preliminary Plat stage, street design was considered a “schematic”, and details were left for later planning stages. It was clarified that the Planning Commission did not have the authority to make design decisions regarding Stall Road.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Joe Caldwell, Bartlett & West Engineers, said the point of the proposed plat was to reduce curb cuts and increase safety, as well as preserve a large amount of the existing agricultural character of the area.
Mr. Caldwell said the County Public Works Department did not comment on a need for deceleration or acceleration lanes. The single access point was designed under the review of the Public Works director and was placed at the highest point in the road to maximize sight distance.
Mr. Caldwell pointed out that a second access point as suggested earlier would create a bigger safety hazard and more maintenance issues for the county.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on the variance request.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was verified that the subject area was located several miles outside the Lawrence UGA.
Comm. Burress said that, according to Staff, “undue hardship” was defined as any action that does not accomplish any definable policy purpose. He asked what policy purpose would be met by denying the requested variance. Chairman Haase replied that following the rules was a policy purpose and said the rules should be changed if they did not fit, rather than breaking them all the time. Comm. Angino said it was impossible to write the regulations to fit every situation every time.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Eichhorn, seconded by Comm. Angino to grant a variance to allow a cul-de-sac measuring 2005’ in length, based on the analysis provided in the Staff Report.
Motion failed, 2-6, with Comm.’s Angino and Riordan in favor. Comm.’s Haase, Burress, Jennings, Erickson, Eichhorn and Krebs voted in opposition. Student Commissioner Brown voted in opposition.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
Chairman Haase reminded the Commission that approving the plat with the condition for redesign without the cul-de-sac would mean the Commission would not see the (preliminary) plat again. It was determined that nothing would be gained by deferral.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to deny the Preliminary Plat for Raeta Subdivision, based on a determination that the plat, as designed, was impossible to construct without the denied variance.
Motion carried 8-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
MISC. ITEM NO. 1B: ISSUES OF PROCESS
Commissioner Item: Consideration of a memorandum on “Issues of Process.” This memo was developed by a subset of Commissioners in May and June and distributed to the full Commission at the June 23rd meeting. This memo was developed to respond to previous discussions that Planning Commission and Planning Department efficiencies in procedures are warranted. A copy is posted on the website at: www.lawrenceplanning.com under Planning Commission Procedural issues.
Staff noted for the record that the Commission had requested at the Study Session that this item be placed on a future Mid-Month Agenda.
MISC. ITEM NO. 2: REQUEST FOR CONCURRENT SUBMISSION
Ms. Stogsdill explained the applicant’s request to allow concurrent submission of the preliminary and final plats for St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church. This request was based on the church’s 6-month deadline for making improvements to their access on W. 6th Street as part of an agreement with KDOT. Due to the holiday season submittal schedule, the final plat (if not allowed concurrent submission) could not be considered any sooner than November.
Staff’s memo provided the section of the Code dealing with the criteria for permitting concurrent submission and stated Staff’s opinion that the request did not meet these criteria. It was discussed that concurrent submission was discouraged for large projects because of the high probability that significant changes would occur between the preliminary and final plats. Staff was of the opinion that this project was not likely to experience significant changes.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Comm. Burress referenced the Commission’s policy of extending the meeting only to complete the item currently on the table. He called for unanimous consent to act in opposition to this policy and consider additional items. No opposition was stated.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to allow concurrent submission for the preliminary and final plats for St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
MISC. ITEM NO. 3 REQUEST FOR REVISION TO FINAL PLAT CONDITIONS
Ms. Stogsdill explained the request to give “blanket approval” for changes to the conditions of approval for three final plats: Monterey Bluffs, Stonegate IV, and Fall Creek Farms No. 10.
Each plat was approved with a condition to submit public improvement plans to the Public Works Department before filing a final plat. Ms. Stogsdill explained the recent formation of a benefit district to finance the construction of Monterey Way north of Trail Road and Peterson Road between Kasold Drive and Monterey Way, which required the dedication of right-of-way from each of the subject areas. Removal of the condition would allow such dedication to occur as part of filing the final plat, rather than through a separate instrument.
Staff recommended approval of the changes as presented in the Staff memo.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the revision to the final plat conditions for Monterey Bluffs, Stonegate IV and Fall Creek Farms No. 10 to remove the requirement for submittal of public improvement plans to Public Works before filing of the final plat(s).
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
ADJOURN 12:10 a.m. September 23, 2004