LAWRENCE-DOUGLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION
City Commission Room, City Hall, 6 E. 6th Street
OCTOBER 27, 2004
Meeting Minutes
_____________________________________________________________
Chairman Haase called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Other Commissioners present: Burress, Angino, Eichhorn, Erickson, Riordan, Lawson, Johnson, Jennings, and Krebs
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Patterson, Tully, Day, Ahrens and Saker
_____________________________________________________________
MINUTES
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Jennings to approve the minutes of the September 2004 Planning Commission meeting as presented.
Motion carried 9-0-1, with Comm. Johnson abstaining due to her absence from the September meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
CPC: The Committee met three times to discuss the Southeast Area Plan. They forwarded to the full Commission the two design options seen on tonight’s regular agenda. The Commission was asked to hold a public hearing and choose one option to forward to the City Commission. The Committee also discussed the Industrial Land Use chapter that was on tonight’s miscellaneous agenda, with a recommendation that the chapter be initiated for a Text Amendment to HORIZON 2020
DRC: The Committee met with faculty from the KU Planning Department and an architect from Kansas City to discuss different kinds of development and neighborhood designs. They applied the draft Commercial Design Guidelines to several existing developments, both local and nationwide, to see how the guidelines worked with those design alternatives. The Committee was working to fit the concept of New Urbanism into the draft guidelines.
RPC: The Committee met to finalize the draft Rural Development chapter that would be proposed for a Text Amendment to HORIZON 2020.
TAC: The Committee did not meet.
PCMM: The Commission discussed the update to Chapter 8 – Transportation Goals. They also received a presentation on the status of the North Lawrence Drainage Study.
PCMM II: The Commission discussed the update to Chapter 10 – Community Facilities. The also talked about the Issues of Process memo developed by several members of the Commission. Several ideas were proposed to shorten meeting times and deal more effectively with agenda items. Some ideas would be implemented immediately and others would be initiated for a four-month trial in January 2005.
COMMUNICATIONS
Staff outlined the following communications:
Item 2 – Preliminary & Final Plats for Diamondhead
Item 4 – Preliminary Plat for Stoneridge North
Item 5 – Preliminary & Final Plats for St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church
Item 8 – Consideration of de novo hearing for Raeta Subdivision
Item 9 – CUP for Valley Sharpening Service
Item 10 – Southeast Area Plan
Item 12 – UPR & Final Plat for Fountains Retirement Center & Inverness Park Plaza Addition No. 5
Item 15 – Rezonings and Plat for Midyett Office
Misc. Item 1 – Final Plat for Cornerstone Plaza II
General
ABSTENSIONS / EX PARTE
DEFERRAL REQUESTS
The Commission agreed to discuss the deferral request for Items 15A-15C submitted by neighborhood residents.
Jennifer Stewart, 1060 Home Circle, spoke on behalf of the Home Circle Neighborhood. She asked for a 2-month deferral of these items to allow for discussions between the applicant and the neighborhood. Area residents felt they were not given adequate notice of the proposal and did not have enough information regarding how this project would impact their homes and property values.
Primary concerns of the residents centered on the types of buildings that would be allowed on the subject property, traffic access and traffic increases specifically on 24th Street, and the future of existing trailers that would be moved or removed with this project.
Lori Shackleford, 1076 Home Circle, added that the neighborhood was concerned that future road improvements would cut into existing property lines.
C.L. Maurer, Landplan Engineering, responded to the public’s concerns on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Maurer read into the record a letter that was sent to Staff after the communications deadline. The letter explained how the applicant proposed to develop Lot 1 first, moving existing trailers back into Lots 2 & 3 in spaces that were either vacant or currently filled with trailers that did not meet code.
Mr. Maurer noted that many of the neighbor’s concerns were plat and site plan matters and did not relate to zoning. He said the applicant had tried to meet with the residents in the past but a time could not be scheduled.
Mr. Maurer said the applicant would like to move forward with all three items. However, if deferral was chosen, the applicant would like to defer only Item 15A that dealt with Lot 3 (where the detention area was proposed). Taking action on 15B & 15C now would allow the developer to begin work on Lot 1 and still have discussions with the neighborhood about Lot 3. He also noted that the applicant would like to work with Staff on changing the negative recommendation in the Staff Report for Item 15A.
Mr. Maurer commented that the Staff Report mentions the need for a Use Permitted upon Review in order to move trailers on the site. He said this standard was not uniformly applied and it was established that the property owner could move trailers now with no additional process or approval.
Ms. Finger pointed out that much of the current discussion was centering on the plan, rather than on potential.
Chairman Haase asked what hardship the applicant would face if all three items were deferred. Mr. Maurer replied that the applicant would not be able to have the building in place on Lot 1 by Summer 2005 and would lose his lease.
Kevin Stewart, 1060 Home Circle, said the neighborhood was primarily concerned about public access to 24th Street from Lot 2. He mentioned the nearby bar/club and expressed neighborhood’s concern that bar patrons would park in front of resident’s homes or cut through the area on 24th Street.
Mr. Stewart did not understand why the neighborhood (Hand Subdivision) was zoned for duplexes when it was developed almost exclusively with single-family homes.
There was discussion about the applicant’s ability to proceed with construction on Lot 1 with the current C-4 zoning. Staff explained that Lot 1 did not technically exist until the plat was approved. If the Commission approved the plat but deferred the rezonings, the applicant could proceed with additional development review processes required prior to construction.
It was suggested that the plat could be restricted to have no access to 24th Street, thus addressing the primary concerns of the neighborhood.
Comm. Angino referenced the Commission’s stated intent to use their time more effectively and asked that they come to a vote on the deferral issue.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to defer Items 15A, 15B & 15C to the December 2004 meeting.
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Lawson to substitute the motion on the floor with a motion to defer Item 15A & 15B to the December 2004 meeting and leave Item 15C on the current agenda.
Motion to amend failed to carry, 5-5, with Comm.’s Lawson, Krebs, Jennings, Eichhorn and Riordan voting in favor. Comm.’s Burress, Angino, Johnson, Haase, and Erickson voted in opposition.
Motion on the floor was to defer Items 15A – 15C to December 2004.
Motion failed to carry, 4-6, with Comm.’s Burress, Angino, Haase, and Erickson voting in favor. Comm.’s Lawson, Krebs, Jennings, Eichhorn, Riordan and Johnson voted in opposition.
Motioned by Comm. Burress to reconsider the substitute motion.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Items 15A – 15C were retained on the regular agenda.
AGENDA
ITEM NO. 1: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR QUIKTRIP STORE NO. 167; 1020 E. 23RD STREET (JLT)
PP-02-05-04: Preliminary Plat for QuikTrip Store No. 167. This proposed commercial subdivision contains approximately 1.621 acres and is located east of Haskell Avenue and north of E. 23rd Street. Submitted by Dan Watkins for QuikTrip Corporation, contract purchaser. Axrom L.C. is the property owner of record. This item was deferred from the August Planning Commission meeting.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Riordan to approve the Preliminary Plat for QuikTrip Store No. 167, based on the findings of fact provided in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following notes on the preliminary plat:
a. Public improvements plans (deceleration lane, sidewalks, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer) will be submitted to Public Works Department prior to submittal of the final plat for recordation.
b. No building permit will be issued prior to the filing of a final plat with the Register of Deeds Office.
c. Description on how the public improvements will be financed.
d. No access to 23rd Street. Access will be through an off-site access easement.
2. Provision of the following revision to the preliminary plat:
a. Graphically show no access to 23rd Street.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
ITEM NO. 2A: RECONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DIAMONDHEAD; SOUTH OF W. 6TH STREET (U.S. HWY. 40) & WEST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) (SLD)
PP-09-17-02: Preliminary Plat for Diamondhead is a proposed single-family, multi=-family, residential/office planned commercial district containing 99.28 acres and 96 lots. The property is generally described as being located south of W. 6th Street between K-10 Highway and George Williams Way (Extended). Submitted by Brian Kubota for Diamond Head Limited Partnership, property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 2B: FINAL PLAT FOR DIAMONDHEAD; SOUTH OF W. 6TH STREET (U.S. HWY. 40) & WEST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) SLD)
PF-09-27-04: Final Plat for Diamondhead. This proposed residential subdivision and planned commercial development contains approximately 96.563 acres and is located south of W. 6th Street (U.S. Hwy. 40) and west of George Williams Way (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Diamond Head Limited Partnership, property owner of record.
Items 2A & 2B were discussed simultaneously.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress said he pulled these items from the Consent Agenda to ask Staff if the plat contained a block length longer that the 1320’ allowed by code. Staff explained that the block face in question was actually two streets that met in a curve. Each street, Diamondhead Drive and Harvard Road, met the Subdivision Regulation length restrictions.
Comm. Burress asked why Staff did not support the placement of a pedestrian easement in the drainage easement. Ms. Day explained the drainage easement was not designed to be accessible.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Item 2A
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to re-approve the Preliminary Plat for Diamondhead.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Item 2B
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Final Plat for Diamondhead and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised Final Plat to show the following:
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
ITEM NO. 3: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LEGENDS AT KU, PHASE II; SOUTH OF 24TH PLACE BETWEEN CROSSGATE DRIVE & INVERNESS DRIVE (SLD)
FDP-07-12-04: Final Development Plan for The Legends at KU, Phase II. This proposed multiple-family residential development contains approximately 12.5508 acres and proposes 172 apartments and recreational amenities. The property is generally described as being located south of 24th Place between Crossgate Drive & Inverness Drive. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc, for Callaway Development Corporation, Contract Purchaser, and Inverness Park Limited Partnership, property owners of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Riordan to approve the Final Development Plan for The Legends at KU, Phase II, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
ITEM NO. 4: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR STONERIDGE NORTH; EAST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) AND WEST OF STONERIDGE DRIVE (EXTENDED) (SLD)
PP-09-21-04: Preliminary Plat for Stoneridge North. This proposed single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 19.283 acres and is 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.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress asked if it would be possible to provide a pedestrian easement in the northwestern corner of the development to George Williams Way. He said he was not persuaded by the applicant’s argument that the easement would be excessively long and thus an unfair burden on the adjacent property owner who would be responsible for maintenance and liability. He said the length of the sidewalk was determined by the applicant’s design, which could be changed to create a shorter pedestrian easement.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to approve the Preliminary Plat for Stoneridge North, subject to the following added condition:
1. Provision of a pedestrian access easement from the Silverstone Drive to George Williams Way.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
The applicant’s representative, Tim Herndon of Landplan Engineering, was asked to respond to the proposed condition. Mr. Herndon showed the three possible routes for the pedestrian easement from this “awkward corner” and explained why none of these routes was a good option. He added that the configuration of the plat was based on existing land use, development, property lines and gas easements, so re-designing the cul-de-sac was not a viable option.
Mr. Herndon said connectivity was a good idea but did not fit this specific case. He was concerned this condition was “ill-conceived” and “imposes unusual hardship” on one property owner for the public good. He showed paths the area residents could use to get to George Williams Way that he thought were reasonably easy to travel. Comm. Burress said these paths were not necessarily easy to use for handicapped persons. Mr. Herndon acknowledged this correction, but noted that the pathways already provided were well-lit, publicly maintained and in the public ROW.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the Preliminary Plat for Stoneridge North, subject to the following added condition:
1. Provision of a pedestrian access easement from Silverstone Drive to George Williams Way.
Motion failed to carry, 5-5, with Comm.’s Burress, Krebs, Erickson, Haase and Johnson voting in favor. Comm.’s Angino, Jennings, Eichhorn, Lawson and Riordan voted in opposition.
Motioned by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Preliminary Plat for Stoneridge North with no conditions as presented by Staff.
Motion carried, 8-2, with Comm.’s Angino, Jennings, Eichhorn, Lawson, Riordan, Krebs, Erickson, and Haase voting in favor. Comm.’s Burress and Johnson voted in opposition.
ITEM NO. 5A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ST. MARGARET’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH ADDITION; 5700 W. 6TH STREET (JLT)
PP-09-23-04: Preliminary Plat for St. Margaret’s Church Addition. This proposed addition contains approximately 10.00 acres and is located at 5700 W. 6th Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Riordan to approve the Preliminary Plat for St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Revise property ownership label to the west;
2. Label existing 40’ and 80’ rights-of-way for Stoneridge Drive with asterisks;
3. Provide Book and Page references on plat for utility easements;
5. Correct legal description (written description includes right-of-way acquired through condemnation and is no longer part of this property).
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
ITEM NO. 5B: FINAL PLAT FOR ST. MARGARET’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH ADDITION; 5700 W. 6TH STREET (JLT)
PF-09-31-04: Final Plat for St. Margaret’s Church Addition. This proposed addition contains approximately 10.00 acres and is located at 5700 W. 6th Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church, property owner of record
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress said he pulled this item from the Consent Agenda to get a comment into the record. He encouraged the city to look into ways to deed the small triangular parcel of land located between the new access drive for the church and the northeast corner of the church property (on city property). The church had a reason for maintaining that piece of ground and the city did not.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the Final Plat for St. Margaret’s Church and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements, subject to the following conditions:
4. Correct legal description and ownership label to the west.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
ITEM NO. 6: FINAL PLAT FOR WESTWOOD HILLS, 4TH PLAT, A REPLAT OF LOTS 5-12, BLOCK TWO, WESTWOOD HILLS 3RD PLAT; NORTH OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND WEST OF WAKARUSA DRIVE (EXTENDED) (PGP)
PF-09-30-04: Final Plat for Westwood Hills 4th Plat, a replat of Lots 5-12, Block Two, Westwood Hills 3rd plat. This proposed single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 1.833 acres and is located north of Eisenhower Drive and west of Wakarusa Drive (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Westwood, L.L.C., property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Riordan to approve the Final Plat for Westwood Hills, 4th Plat and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements, 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. Provision of a completed Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708a.
2. Pinning of the lots per Section 21-302.2.
3. Execution of a Temporary Utility Easement.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
ITEM NO. 7: FINAL PLAT FOR APPLE VALLEY SUBDIVISION NO. 2, A REPLAT OF LOT 19B, ADDITION NO. 11 IN NORTH LAWRENCE; 865 ELM STREET (PGP)
PF-09-28-04: Final Plat for Apple Valley Subdivision No. 2, a replat of Lot 19B, Addition No. 11 in North Lawrence. This proposed single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 0.407 acres and is located at 865 Elm Street. Submitted by BG Consultants, Inc., for Lewis E. and Mary Lou Roberts, property owners of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Riordan to approve the Final Plat for Apple Valley Subdivision 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 revisions to the plat:
a. Change the word “plan” to “plant” in general note No. 1;
b. Change “Ninth Street” to “N. 9th Street”; and
c. Provision of necessary perimeter utility easements.
2. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Provision of a completed Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708a.
3. Provide an Agreement Not to Protest Formation of a Benefit District for street and sidewalk improvements to Elm Street and to N. 9th Street;
4. New driveway culvert pipes must be installed per the approval of the Department of Public Works. Submit a plan and profile of the existing and proposed roadside drainage system fronting the property. The profile must extend far enough along the right-of-way to identify optimum system grades. Identify all pipe sizes and flowlines for construction. This study must be approved by Public Works prior to release of building permits; and
5. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
Item No. 8: Consider County Commission Determination on de novo hearing of Preliminary Plat of Raeta Subdivision (sld)
On October 11th, the County Commission held a de novo hearing for consideration of the preliminary plat of Raeta Subdivision. Consistent with Section 21-801 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Commission’s written decision and plat are submitted to the Planning Commission for concurrence. In cases where non-concurrence occurs, the decision of the governing body is final.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day explained the County Commission held a de novo hearing (a new hearing) and approved the subject plat, including a variance for a cul-de-sac measuring more than 1320’ in length. According to the rules governing a de novo hearing, the issue was returned to the Planning Commission for their concurrence or non-concurrence.
Based on the interpretation supplied by the County Legal Counsel, the Planning Commission was allowed to place additional conditions on the plat that related to the granted variance and/or were in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare.
It was clarified that the approval of the County Commission was the “final determination” on the plat and the Planning Commission did not have the authority to place conditions on the plat that would block its progress.
Following discussion with the Township Fire Chief and the County Public Works Director, Planning Staff recommended the following additional conditions:
1. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Plat that states “The 15’ utility easement along the north side of Raeta Avenue and Rose Court be labeled 15’ Utility and Emergency Access Easement.”
2. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Plat that states: “No permanent structures, fencing or trees are allowed in the 15’ utility/emergency access easement.”
3. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Plat that states “Water line plans for the subdivision shall include fire hydrant plans per appropriate county and township review approval.”
4. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Plat that states: “Public improvements plans shall include necessary improvements to the intersection of Raeta Avenue and E 50 Road, per the approval of the County Public Works Director.”
In Staff’s opinion, recommended conditions 1 & 2 were directly related to the approved variance and conditions 3 & 4 were provided in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare.
In response to questions asked at the Study Session, Planning Staff contacted the County Public Work Director. He was asked specifically about the possible placement of a stop light or stop sign at the subdivision’s access onto E. 50 Road. Mr. Browning told Staff that this would have a negative impact on traffic safety. He told Staff that a deceleration lane and acceleration lane may be needed in the future.
Mr. Browning also told Staff that E. 50 Road needed improvements today. However, this property owner was not responsible for making 100% of those improvements and this plat dedicated adequate right-of-way for future road improvements.
It was discussed that the final plat process would include subdivision of public improvement plans. This design would be reviewed by the County Public Works Department for a determination on the necessity of deceleration/acceleration lanes or other traffic devices.
Mr. Browning stated specifically in response to questions from Staff that there was no intent to construct a left-turn lane onto N1700 Road.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Bill Fleming, Barber Emerson, responded to Staff’s recommended conditions on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Fleming said the conditions were a “surprise” and he had not had much time to prepare his response because he had gotten this communication only two hours previously.
Mr. Fleming said the applicant did not oppose conditions 1 & 2, since they were clearly related to the variance granted by the County Commission. However, the applicant felt that conditions 3 & 4 were outside the Planning Commission’s scope of authority as granted by state statute and ask that these conditions be removed.
Mr. Fleming added that the fire hydrants required in condition 3 should have been required as part of the plat that was already approved by the County Commission. He added that it was not known whether the existing water system could support those hydrants. Placing the hydrants without adequate water pressure would create a false sense of security for area residents.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff responded to questioning that conditions 3 & 4 were worded to imply improvements would be made as determined necessary and feasible by further study.
It was established that, if the Planning Commission applied conditions the applicant did not agree with, the new conditions could be overruled by the County Commission. Staff was amenable to removing conditions if the Commission was opposed to any of the recommendations.
It was suggested that, if the Commission would like these restrictions to apply uniformly to all rural subdivisions, that topic should be raised in the next discussion of the Subdivision Regulations.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress to concur with the County Commission’s approval of the Preliminary Plat for Raeta Subdivision, with the addition of the conditions 1, 2 & 4 as proposed by Staff.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was clarified that the Commission was not required to concur with the County’s decision in order to add conditions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was withdrawn prior to second.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm Krebs to add the following revised conditions to the Preliminary Plat for Raeta Subdivision:
1. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Plat that states “The 15’ utility easement along the north side of Raeta Avenue and Rose Court be labeled 15’ Utility and Emergency Access Easement;”
2. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Plat that states: “No permanent structures, fencing or trees are allowed in the 15’ utility/emergency access easement;” and
3. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Plat that states: “Public improvements plans shall include necessary improvements to the intersection of Raeta Avenue and E 50 Road, per the approval of the County Public Works Director.”
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Chairman Haase suggested the County Public Works should specifically evaluate geometric improvements to the intersection to ensure planning principles were considered as well as public works concerns. He proposed alternate wording for the last condition, which was amended without opposition.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to add the following re-revised conditions to the Preliminary Plat for Raeta Subdivision:
1. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Plat that states “The 15’ utility easement along the north side of Raeta Avenue and Rose Court be labeled 15’ Utility and Emergency Access Easement;”
2. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Plat that states: “No permanent structures, fencing or trees are allowed in the 15’ utility/emergency access easement;” and
3. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Plat that states: “The County Public Works Director shall evaluate geometric improvements to the intersection of Raeta Avenue and E 50 Road to determine need. This evaluation shall include consideration of flashing warning lights approaching the site on both sides, a left-turn lane exiting the site onto E 50 Road, and construction of an acceleration and/or deceleration lane.”
Motion carried 7-3, with Comm.’s Burress, Angino, Erickson, Krebs, Johnson, Haase and Riordan voting in favor. Comm.’s Jennings, Eichhorn and Lawson voted in opposition.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to support a decision of non-concurrence with the County Commission’s approval of the Preliminary Plat for Raeta Subdivision.
Motion carried 7-3, with Comm.’s Burress, Angino, Erickson, Krebs, Johnson, Haase and Riordan voting in favor. Comm.’s Jennings, Eichhorn and Lawson voted in opposition.
ITEM NO. 9: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VALLEY SHARPENING SERVICE; 701 E 1747 ROAD (SLD)
CUP-09-03-04: Conditional Use Permit request for Valley Sharpening Service. The property is located at 701 E 1747 Road, directly west of Vinland Elementary School. Submitted by Rick and Kellie Westgate, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day explained the subject property was not large enough to qualify as a Rural Home Occupation and so required a Conditional Use Permit to continue the part-time activity. She described the surrounding area and uses and noted the revised conditions per Study Session discussion.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Rick Westgate, applicant, said he purchased the business from a friend and had not known that a permit was needed to continue the use. He said the activity had been operating and had prompted no complaints or concerns from his neighbors.
Mr. Westgate said he did not understand why he needed a permit to continue the existing use.
Mr. Westgate responded to questioning that the business would generate no noise beyond the property line.
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
Mr. Westgate responded to questioning that he was not aware of the conditions recommended by Staff. He was given a copy of the Staff report and expressed objection to the conditions about parking and exterior storage screening, saying these conditions were not applicable because he would have so few parked cars and no exterior storage related to the business.
It was clarified that these conditions were technical in nature and were standard for Conditional Use Permits. Adequate parking was provided on the site but was not clearly marked on the provided drawings. If there was no exterior storage, the condition for screening would not be triggered.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Valley Sharpening Service at 701 E 1747 Road 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 unanimously, 10-0.
Chairman Haase called a 10-minute recess.
Meeting reconvened at 8:20 p.m.
ITEM NO. 10: 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
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day explained the two options provided for discussion and public hearing tonight were the summary of over a year’s work by the Comprehensive Plans Committee (CPC). The Commission was asked to forward to the City Commission a consensus on one of the options before the final draft of the neighborhood plan was developed.
Ms. Day said both options were possibilities for a neighborhood plan that would operate under the umbrella of the Comprehensive Plan. The neighborhood plan would establish land use, not zoning, and both options were based on the approximate alignments of the Highway K-10 improvements and the intended major roads.
Option One introduced and defined the concept of an “employment center”. This option focused on industrial land use, but provided medium- and high-density residential land uses west of Franklin Road. Cluster development was proposed, rather than typical apartment complexes. A commercial center and a small convenience center to serve the employment center were included in the design, following direction given in HORIZON 2020.
Option Two also included industrial area in the northeast, but this option scaled back the industrial element in favor of additional residential development on both the east and west sides of Franklin Road.
It was verified that both options assumed Franklin Road was a major trafficway, reflecting the adopted transportation plan. Franklin Road’s classification would be as a collector at a minimum.
Staff was asked to estimate which option would generate more traffic. Staff replied that this specific level of analysis was dependent on land use details that would not be available until development occurred. In general, it was known that residential uses generated more trips than other uses.
Staff was asked to explain the concept of an “employment center”. Ms. Day said this was similar to a business park concept, with limited retail and service uses. The types of businesses were not detailed, but light industry uses were possible with some small service-type component.
PUBLIC HEARING
Danny Drungilas spoke as the President of the Prairie Park Neighborhood Association. He said the neighborhood opposed light industrial land uses as stated in the letter sent to the Commission. The neighborhood supported primarily residential uses in this area, with a mix of commercial office and an “appropriate mix” of transitions in between. Mr. Drungilas clarified that the neighborhood would like to see as may single family residences as possible.
The Commission asked why the neighborhood opposed light industrial uses. Mr. Drungilas said residents were concerned about a reduced quality of living, specifically related to traffic, noise and pollution. They were also opposed to the visual impact of parking lots and loading docks.
It was noted that residential uses would generate more traffic than light industrial uses, and Mr. Drungilas repeated the resident’s opposition to large parking lots and big “block” buildings. They understood that, realistically, some industrial uses were to be expected, but the neighborhood preferred Option 2 because of its focus on residential uses.
Tony Augusto, member of the Prairie Park Neighborhood Association, agreed with Mr. Drungilas’ statement that the neighborhood preferred Option 2. He said the residents were used to residential traffic, so the increase created by additional residential development would be less intrusive than the truck traffic generated by industrial uses.
Mr. Augusto asked why the city was discussing Franklin Road extending northward when funding for this improvement had not been found.
Kathy Egbert, 2941 Bishop Street, thanked those Commissioners who responded to her email communication. She agreed with the previous speakers that she would like to see as much residential development as possible, with commercial uses only along 23rd Street. She understood this would create more traffic than other uses, but said the appearance of residential development was preferable.
Bill Newsom spoke as a member and representative of Eastside Acquisitions, a partnership that owned a significant amount of land covered by the proposed plan. He said the partnership supported Option 2, stating this option provided the best outcome for all the stakeholders.
Along with area residents and land owners, Mr. Newsome defined the ECO2 subcommittee as a stakeholder in this decision. Mr. Newsome said ECO2, the committee charged with locating available industrial land in Douglas County, had stated the incremental amount of industrial land shown in Option 2 would be suitable, since an ample amount of industrial land was already located nearby. It was also possible the Farmland property north of Highway K-10 would convert to additional industrial land.
Mr. Newsom spoke about the market demand for “starter-priced” homes, noting that the industrial jobs created in the area would increase that demand. He said the investors in this area had made an assumption in good faith that residential uses were a “prudent assumption” for the long range land use of this property.
Mr. Newsome said Option 2 clearly mirrored the land use recommendations supported by Staff in the past and “no one can assert that [Option] 2 is not prudent land use planning”. He added that none of the stakeholders would benefit from Option 1, while they would all benefit from Option 2.
There was discussion about the negative connotation being applied to “industrial uses”. Mr. Newsome noted that that light industrial uses might include professional services, biosciences, computer manufacturing, etc. He said “we’re not talking about smokestacks and loading docks.”
The Commission asked Mr. Newsom to be more specific about other areas in Douglas County that would be equally or better suited for industrial development. Mr. Newsom said he was not prepared to state other specific locations. However, based on discussions with members of ECO2 (not a statement by the committee as a whole), he said this area was ranked at an 8 according to their criteria analysis.
Lance Johnson, Peridian Group, said his company had been working for over a year to get infrastructure put in this area for any kind of development. Peridian estimated the cost of infrastructure improvements at a minimum of $5 million and Mr. Johnson said it was a challenge to find any private party willing to fund those basic improvements. Two entities (Kitsmiller & Eastside Acquisitions) had proposed benefit districts to deal with infrastructure costs upfront. Mr. Johnson said this area was the “last, best chance to provide the low-cost housing” that motivated these developers to make such an advance investment. Mr. Johnson noted that the $5 million estimate was only for sewer improvements. Roads and other improvements would increase the cost of development.
Comm. Burress stated an opposition to the term, “affordable housing”, and discussed with Mr. Johnson the price point definition of “low income” housing. This was estimated at $125,000 – $175,000, with the caveat that this was considered “low income” or “affordable” based on the overall Lawrence housing market.
Melinda Henderson, Lawrence resident and member of ECO2, said she would like to speak to several points made by previous speakers. She countered the claim that no one would benefit from Option 1, stating that she might benefit. She spoke about the lack of good jobs in Lawrence, saying the city did not have enough appropriate sites to bring in those businesses.
Ms. Henderson said the price range referenced by Mr. Newsom ($125-175,000) was not affordable by her own standards and continuing to build housing in this price range did not solve the problem of “where do people like me live?”
Ms. Henderson said there had been many referenced to ECO2’s decisions and she wanted to state clearly that the subcommittee had not come to any final determinations. She asked the Commission to disregard previous comments about reports, ranking or consensus on any significant points made by ECO2.
Ms. Henderson noted that ECO was looking for additional industrial sites within Douglas County, not specifically within Lawrence. She said the subject area was one of the closest parcels with infrastructure close by.
Carolyn Micek, member of ECO2, agreed with Ms. Henderson that other speakers had misrepresented the work of ECO 2 and their conclusions. She also agreed that bringing good jobs to Lawrence was possibly more important than providing low cost housing.
Phil Struble, Landplan Engineering, expressed interest in the comments and response of ECO2 members. He said he was also a committee member, and that ECO 2 was focused on finding a broad range of transportation options for industrial users was, and echoed the statements of previous speakers that ECO2 had not yet come to any final determinations.
Mr. Struble said access to major transportation routes was an important factor in choosing ideal industrial land, and access to I-70 was paramount. He said the slope of the land was also important, since significant slopes would require extensive grading before large buildings could be constructed. Finally, he said ECO2 would consider the number of property owners that would be impacted.
There was discussion about the slope and underlying soil of the subject area. Chairman Haase said he saw little slope and little subsurface rock, making this land highly suitable for large buildings.
Chairman Haase explained why he felt access to Highway K-10 was so important for economic development, making this site the best location for industrial users. Mr. Struble said he did not share this viewpoint.
Gaye Kitsmiller, property owner, said that no industrial users had expressed interest in her land over the 50 years she had owned it. She expressed concern that designating the land for industrial uses in the future would restrict the property owner’s ability to sell or otherwise use their land today.
Ms. Kitsmiller said there were many industrial sites still available that were ready for development (infrastructure in place). She said she understood the need for housing and that, although $125,000 may not be considered “affordable” by some, it was more affordable than the $400,000 homes to the west.
It was established that the Kitsmiller’s owned their land before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, which showed a significant portion of the area as industrial.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Angino listed the reasons he supported Option 2:
Comm. Erickson said Franklin Road would unavoidably become a main arterial because of its planned diamond interchange with K-10 and its spacing from Haskell Avenue. She did not support Option 2 because this would result in Franklin Road – a main arterial – bisecting residential and leaving a section of homes to the east that was not large enough to stand on its own as a neighborhood.
Comm. Erickson was also concerned about where children from this new residential development would go to school, since Prairie Park School was at capacity and the school district had stated that no new school was anticipated for the area.
Comm. Jennings responded to the comment that there were “no good jobs” in Lawrence. He said his business paid far above minimum wage, but he had difficulty keeping positions filled because applicants could not meet basic hiring requirements.
Comm. Jennings explained the intent of placing residential on both sides of Franklin Road as shown in Option 2 was to meet the Comprehensive Plan intent that like uses face each other across streets. Placing industrial uses facing residential uses was not a desirable design. He added that it was not a given that Franklin Road would have a straight alignment, “bisecting” the neighborhood.
Comm. Jennings said the city was losing tax dollars when local workers lived elsewhere. The city needed homes and the subject area was likely to develop quicker with Option 2.
Chairman Haase said representatives of the Chamber of Commerce had told him Lawrence was in danger of becoming a “bedroom community”, and he felt the city should think about economic development possibilities first.
Chairman Haase stated that infrastructure would have to be paid for by the city if Lawrence was serious about economic development. He said these same arguments would arise every time a predicted industrial site became mature. He said all factors pointed to this site as an ideal location for large amounts of industrial development.
Comm. Burress described his concept of road design and funding to deal with eminent road improvements to Highways K10 and 59, as well as residential growth south of the Wakarusa River in the next 15-20 years. He said the Commission could not choose an option for the southeast area until these important transportation issues were settled.
Comm. Burress said he did not think the concerns of residents and property owners over a mile away should be the main focus of the Commission’s decision. He said he would like sight line descriptions and more information on slope beyond the contour map provided. Staff noted that detailed information was provided in adopted area plans and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff had attempted to compile and condense relevant data in the Staff Report.
Comm. Burress did not agree that housing was as valuable to the community as other forms of development. He said that housing paid less than its fair share of taxes, resulting in an overall tax increase.
Comm. Angino commented that the land had been zoned industrially for many years and had not been pursued for industrial uses. He suggested there were other reasons the land had not developed industrially as predicted.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to forward to the City Commission an opinion of support for Option 2 and to direct Staff to move ahead on detailed area planning for the southeast area based on the conceptual land use shown in Option 2.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Chairman Haase asked to respond to previous comments, saying the land had been identified for industrial uses in the Comprehensive Plan, but it had not been zoned industrially because of the lack of readily available public services. He said he had been told that these public services were now accessible and preparing for extension in to the subject area.
Comm. Johnson said she preferred Option 1 because it kept residential uses together and provided a separation (Franklin Road) between residential and the prison. She suggested that no information on slopes was needed beyond that provided in the Staff Report, which stated the area had an average slope of 6-8%.
Comm. Eichhorn expressed his preference for Option 2, and Comm. Riordan for Option 1. Comm.’s Jennings and Lawson had no additional comments and asked that the Commission come to a vote.
Comm.’s Erickson and Krebs preferred Option 1 based on concerns discussed earlier relating to schools and neighborhood division. Comm. Krebs said the Commission approved a significant number of housing lots at every meeting and there was no guarantee that homes in this area would be more affordable than any others. She said it was important to provide economic opportunities to support residents.
Comm. Angino said he could see how the Commission was going to vote and he thought it would be a “big mistake.”
Comm. Burress said either option was feasible, but Option 1 appeared to leave more opportunities open for the future. He was not convinced that Franklin Road would not become heavily trafficked, which was a primary point of Option 2. He said it would be easy to change the industrial areas to residential in the future if industrial development did not occur.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to forward to the City Commission an opinion of support for Option 2 and to direct Staff to move ahead on detailed area planning for the southeast area based on the conceptual land use shown in Option 2.
Motion failed, 4-6, with Comm.’s Lawson, Eichhorn, Angino and Jennings voting in favor. Comm.’s Haase, Erickson, Krebs, Riordan, Burress and Johnson voted in opposition.
Motioned by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Erickson to forward to the City Commission an opinion of support for Option 1 and to direct Staff to move ahead on detailed area planning for the southeast area based on the conceptual land use shown in Option 1.
Motion carried, 7-3, with Comm.’s Haase, Erickson, Krebs, Riordan, Burress, Johnson and Lawson voting in favor. Comm.’s Eichhorn, Angino and Jennings voted in opposition.
ITEM NO. 11A: 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. This item was deferred from the September meeting.
ITEM NO. 11B: 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. This item was deferred from the September meeting.
Items 11A & 11B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day gave an overview of the proposal, a rezoning and development plan for a new housing project. She described the surrounding area, which was developed with residential uses of varied density. The area had many small lots, resulting in an average density of 5-7 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development would have a density of 5.5 units per acre.
Staff considered this property unique because of its location adjacent to an abandoned railroad right-of-way. The Director of Legal Services felt adequate evidence was provided to support a return of this right-of-way to the applicant, and this tract was a critical element of the project design. The right-of-way provided a significant portion of open space for the development plan, but the city would still be able to use the right-of-way as a public easement for drainage, etc.
It was noted that the plan design included a stubbed right-of-way to the east to provide possible future connection to redevelopment.
Ms. Day explained the development plan included two waiver requests for a reduction in setbacks. She said the plan met the criteria for granting these waivers and the request was not unusual.
Comm. Krebs noted the receipt of multiple comments on the area’s geology and the recent relocation of fill dirt. She asked if this area was suitable for infill development, given its proximity to the floodplain. Staff said soil had been moved as part of an ongoing stormwater project. Staff had submitted a report on these changes to the City. Regarding infill development, Ms. Day said the applicant would have to meet building code requirements for building in the floodplain.
It was established that this proposal was not impacted by the City Commission’s direction given the night before for Staff to begin developing a new neighborhood plan for the railroad corridor that abuts several different neighborhoods in east Lawrence.
It was discussed that a violation of the zoning code was considered a misdemeanor, but noted again that this applicant was not responsible for the clearing of the land that had taken place during the drainage project.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Allen Belot spoke on behalf of the applicant, repeating that the applicant was not involved in the clearing of trees. He showed the location of the project and described details of the units and layout. He also explained how the development would dedicate right-of-way to continue the city’s Rails-to-Trails project and provide an easement for the existing sewer line. Right-of-way would also be dedicated to accomplish improvements to surrounding streets.
Mr. Belot said the project would not be impacted by the City Commission’s recent moratorium if the submittal date were honored.
Mr. Belot said the item was deferred in September to allow time for the developer to discuss issues with the area residents. These discussions with the East Lawrence and Brook Creek Neighborhood Associations has resulted in the revised plan being considered tonight.
Questions addressed at the meetings with the neighborhood included:
Comm. Erickson asked if the developer could provide a pedestrian connection from the cul-de-sac to Haskell Avenue. Mr. Belot said future development to the south would provide a more usable connection. There was discussion about where a path could be placed to provide access to the park for residents living east of Haskell Avenue. Mr. Belot noted the applicant’s intent to maintain the single-family character of the area and suggested this would not be accomplished by encouraging (pedestrian) traffic entering from Haskell Avenue.
Comm. Burress referenced a letter from Michael Almon, President of the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association, in which Mr. Almon expressed concern about elements Mr. Belot had verbally committed to that were not shown on the current plan. Mr. Belot said there were some elements he had agreed to include and some he had agreed to study. There was discussion about which elements fell into which category.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Beth Ann Mansur, President of the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association, stated that the neighborhood had been given no advance notice that trees would be removed from the subject property.
Ms. Mansur described the variety of income levels and types of residents in the Brook Creek neighborhood. She said the residents would like to retain the area’s mixed character and continue the trend of new residents moving in by choice, rather than economic necessity.
Ms. Mansur said the Brook Creek residents felt there was already enough low cost housing in the area and asked that more quality homes be added to the mix. She said this area had nice views and convenient access to downtown, making it a prime location for new, quality homes.
According to Ms. Mansur, the applicant had agreed with the neighborhood association to develop 31 lots, with the understanding that, if these larger lots did not sell, the developer could then subdivide into 33 lots at a later date. She also said the applicant had agreed to include a larger “pocket park. These elements were not shown on the current site plan, and the Brook Creek Neighborhood was hesitant to support a project without a site plan all parties agreed on.
Ms. Mansur suggested the rezoning of the property should be approved as the last step in the process, so the neighborhood was not “at the mercy of the good faith of the developer.”
The neighborhood association asked that the new homes be subject to the definition of family restriction, meaning no more than 3 unrelated persons could reside in a single dwelling unit. This would discourage rental of the new homes and encourage owner occupancy.
Ms. Mansur said it was clear that more jobs were coming to southeast Lawrence and it was important to provide “nice homes” for those workers. She noted that government programs were available to help people with lower incomes to attain nicer homes.
Comm. Burress asked if the neighborhood was concerned that the project would lower the property values of existing homes if it were developed as currently presented. Ms. Mansur said the project as proposed would provide “good starter homes” at first and would have a neutral effect on the area. She was concerned, however, that the new houses would soon become “cheap starter homes” and “no one will want them anymore”.
Michael Almon, Chair of the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association Land Use Committee, said he had prepared comments BCNA as land use chair, prepared comments and was also able to answer questions about pedestrian and bicycle access, as well as the underlying geology of the area.
Mr. Almon agreed with the statement that the neighborhood had gotten no notice that trees would be removed from the property. He said the land was “bulldozed in 24 hours without permit or notice…and a TUPR (Temporary Use Permitted upon Review) was obtained after the fact.”
Mr. Almon said Mr. Shepherd had plans for an extensive fill project and that the city had no responsibility for disposing of that soil. He suggested that the original development plan was “ludicrous” and was withdrawn in favor of this new plan, which was “more palatable, but still leaves much to be desired from neighborhood standards.”
Mr. Almon said the applicant’s representative (Mr. Belot) had been willing and gracious in his discussions with the neighborhood, but residents were concerned that agreements made at neighborhood meetings were only verbal and some of those agreements were to explore options, they were not firm commitments. The neighborhood would like these unknown quantities clarified in writing
Mr. Almon outlined which elements the neighborhood would like written as conditions to the Preliminary of Final Development Plan, as described in his letter to the Commission.
It was noted that Staff did not support the resident’s suggestion that the median at the development entrance be reinstated and a left turn added.
Mr. Almon asked why the existing utility easement to Haskell Avenue could not be used as a pedestrian easement as suggested at the Study Session.
Ed Tato, former President of the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said there were many reasons for not making a sidewalk connection to Haskell Avenue as discussed.
Mr. Tato said he had talked with a banker and an appraiser, and both felt large lots would appraise at a price that would sell in this area. He said he was glad to see the changes already made, but asked the Commission to consider what these new homes would look like in the future.
Mr. Tato said he would like to see sidewalks in front of all the houses (i.e. on both sides of the streets).
It was discussed what traffic impact the new development would have on the area, and suggested that the numbers in the traffic study appeared unrealistically low.
Timothy Moreland, current President of the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said the residents he spoke to were concerned that the neighborhood was “sold” on the project on the basis of affordability, in order to explain the increased density. However, it now appeared that the quality of the units would be decreased to maintain their “affordable” price range. The East Lawrence residents would rather the new development match the mix of the existing neighborhood.
The Commission agreed unanimously to extend the meeting 30 minutes.
Jim Carpenter, Barker Neighborhood Resident, said this sidewalk design mimicked that of another development, The Woods on 19th, in that it ensured connectivity within the neighborhood, but not between this neighborhood and its surrounding area. For this reason, Mr. Carpenter supported the suggested connection to Haskell Avenue.
Mr. Carpenter also supported the suggestion that the new homes be limited to no more than 3 unrelated persons and agreed that left-turn movements onto 15th Street were going to be challenging.
Richard Heckler, Brook Creek resident, asked the Commission to deny the rezoning request or condition the residential restrictions as written noted on the development plan and site plan. He stated his support of all of the proposed conditions listed in Michael Almon’s letter.
APPLICANT CLOSING
Mr. Belot said he was duty-bound to disclose information as well as disinformation regarding his discussions with the neighborhood(s). He said he had agreed to look at a market study to see if the market would support this development with 31 units. He found this was not the case and 33 units would be needed for a successful project.
Regarding the placement of sidewalk on both sides of the street, Mr. Belot said this would drive up the cost of the new units. It was noted that dual sidewalks would be required in the new development code.
STAFF CLOSING
Ms. Day addressed the issue of extending the stub street to the abutting property. She said this was a very specific recommendation and was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Without that right-of-way, development on the adjacent property would have to take access to Haskell Avenue.
Regarding the proposed median and left turn land at the development’s entrance, Ms. Day explained that these were public streets and had to be designed to city standards, meaning a median was not permitted. Staff agreed that left turn movements would be challenging, but pointed out that the code would not allow a left turn lane in this location. Furthermore, the traffic study for this project had determined a left turn lane would not be warranted due to the additional traffic created by this development.
It was verified that, if the sidewalk were extended to connect to Haskell Avenue along the easement, the adjacent property owner would be responsible for maintenance and liability on that walkway.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress said this was a good proposal that could be improved. A number of the proposed improvements had to do with creating housing of a higher quality, when the current proposal was for homes of higher quality than the average level of the existing neighborhood.
Comm. Burress supported the residential restrictions on unrelated persons.
Comm. Burress said the Commission could not address the issue of energy efficiency, but he encouraged the public to support the addition of energy efficiency standards to the Building Code.
Comm. Burress said he was particularly concerned about mobility and connectivity. He supported the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of all internal streets and the pedestrian connection to Haskell Avenue. Comm. Burress said he understood the neighborhood concerns about cut-through pedestrian traffic, but connectivity was more important.
It was noted that the majority of the discussion points related to the planned development, not the rezoning request.
Vice-Chairman Riordan commented on one letter received from the public, stating this was a poor example of written communication. He felt the statements in this letter were incorrect, grandiose and hurt the credibility of the writer.
Regarding the project, Vice-Chair Riordan said this was the sincere and proper way to go about a project and he thought this was an excellent plan. Having lived in the Barker neighborhood, Vice-Chair Riordan said cut-through traffic had been a significant problem and he would not support the requirement of a pedestrian easement to Haskell Avenue. In response to questioning he explained that, in his personal experience, vandalism was common in these cut-through areas and safety was an issue. He specifically described the destruction of a private fence and the moving of cinder blocks due to cut-through pedestrian traffic in the Oread neighborhood.
ACTION TAKEN
ITEM 11A
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the rezoning of 5.57 acres (1503 Haskell Avenue) from RS-2 to PRD-1 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. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance; and
2. Approval of a preliminary development plan prior to the publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
ITEM 11B
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for Parnell Park PRD, subject to revised conditions listed in the Staff Report and with the following added conditions:
7. Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of all internal streets; and
8. A pedestrian access shall be created from Parnell Court to Haskell Avenue along the existing utility easement.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Angino reminded the Commission that dual sidewalks increased the cost of the units when it was not difficult for pedestrians to cross the street to get to the single sidewalk.
Comm. Jennings agreed with Vice-Chair Riordan’s previous comments about negative impacts of cut-through pedestrian traffic and said that requiring the proposed pedestrian easement to Haskell Avenue would dictate the two least desirable lots in the area.
Comm. Burress discussed the trade-off of increasing mobility in exchange for “inviting more strangers” into the area. He said that restricting access might be a gain for the property owners, but it was a loss to all the pedestrian users. He explained that providing multiple access points for “strangers” would reduce the number of outsiders using each point, so more access – not less – was key. He pointed out that a person’s view on mobility depended on their own abilities.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for Parnell Park PRD and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following revised conditions:
Motion carried, 6-3-1, with Comm.’s Burress, Krebs, Erickson, Angino, Haase and Johnson voting in favor. Comm.’s Eichhorn, Jennings and Riordan voted in opposition and Comm. Lawson abstained from the vote.
Comm.’s Lawson and Angino left at 11:25 p.m.
The Commission agreed unanimously to place Agenda Item 13 on the November Mid-Month Agenda, to extend this meeting until all remaining agenda items were dealt with, and to consider Agenda Items 15A – 15C at this point.
ITEM NO. 12A: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR THE FOUNTAINS RETIREMENT CENTER; SOUTHEAST CORNER CLINTON PARKWAY & INVERNESS DRIVE (JLT)
UPR-09-04-04: Use Permitted upon Review for The Fountains Retirement Center. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of Clinton Parkway and Inverness Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Inverness Park Limited Partnership, property owner of record.
ITEM NO. 12B: FINAL PLAT FOR INVERNESS PARK PLAZA ADDITION NO. 5, A REPLAT OF LOT 2 & LOT 3, BLOCK ONE, INVERNESS PARK PLAZA ADDITION NO. 1; SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CLINTON PARKWAY & INVERNESS DRIVE (JLT)
PF-09-29-04: Final Plat for Inverness Park Plaza Addition No. 5, a replat of Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block One, Inverness Park Plaza Addition No. 1. This proposed retirement development contains approximately 25.976 acres and is located at the southeast corner of Inverness Drive and Clinton Parkway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Inverness Park Limited Partnership, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully provided an overview of the project, noting the independence of all the proposed uses. He pointed out that the independent living units portion of the Use Permitted upon Review was required to comply with the density restrictions of the underlying zoning. In this case, one section of the development exceeded this restriction, while another section was beneath it. Staff suggested replatting the property to combine Lots 1 &2 to achieve an overall compliance with the density restriction.
Mr. Tully said the applicant had stated agreement to Staff’s recommendation for recombining the lots with a revised Final Plat as stated in the Staff Report conditions.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Alan Mackey, Landplan Engineering, responded to the suggestion made by Comm. Burress at the Study Session that a bridge should be built to connect the development to Clinton Parkway. Mr. Mackey said the proposed design provided several options for internal circulation, as well as connectivity to other neighborhoods. Preliminary studies showed that bridge as suggested would have to be 50-60’ long across the drainageway to avoid disturbing the drainage channel flow. Mr. Mackey felt a connection between the proposed senior residential development and the recreational uses along Clinton Parkway raised issues of security and safety, and he would not support making that connection.
Comm. Burress asked how the applicant felt about providing sidewalks on both sides of all streets in the development. Tim Herndon of Landplan Engineering replied that the driveways in this development were quite wide and traffic would be infrequent, making it reasonably easy to cross the street to reach the provided single sidewalk. He did not feel that adding more concrete to the development would be an asset and that conditioning this element would be excessive since it was not required according to the current Subdivision Regulations.
There was discussion about potential traffic volume, noting that full volume would not be reached until the entire project was complete in 2011.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no further questions or comments.
ACTIONS TAKEN
ITEM 12A
Motioned by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the Use Permitted upon Review for the Fountains Retirement Center as presented by Staff.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Johnson to amend the motion to include the following condition:
5. All internal streets shall have 6’ width concrete walks on both sides.
Motion to amend failed to carry, 3-5, with Comm. Burress, Johnson and Krebs voting in favor. Comm.’s Haase, Riordan, Jennings, Erickson and Eichhorn voted in opposition.
Motion on the floor was to approve the Use Permitted upon Review for The Fountains Retirement Center 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:
Motion carried 6-2, with Comm.’s Haase, Riordan, Jennings, Erickson, Krebs and Eichhorn voting in favor. Comm.’s Burress and Johnson voted in opposition.
ITEM 12B
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Johnson to approve the Final Plat for Inverness Park Plaza Addition No. 5 and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
1. Revise final plat to provide lot configuration to meet dwelling unit density requirement for RO-1B zoning for the independent living portion of the development;
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; and
c. Submittal and approval of a Master Street Tree Plan.
3. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
4. Submittal of public improvement plans to Public Works Department prior to filing of the final plat;
5. Revise final plat to show existing rights-of-way on 24th Place and Inverness Drive;
6. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2;
7. As per UPR Layout and Landscape Plan, add note, “Revised 100 Year Floodplain Line – LOMR (2003)” to final plat;
8. Provide Minimum Exterior Building Opening (MEBO) information; and
9. Add the following notes to the final plat:
a. No fences or obstructions shall be constructed within dedicated drainage easements;
b. Any additional easements determined to be required during the engineering of public improvements for each phase shall be dedicated through separate instrument;
c. The existing tree line in the Clinton Parkway right-of-way shall be preserved; and
d. All designated collector streets to have 6’ width concrete walks on both sides per City of Lawrence standards.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
ITEM NO. 13: REVIEW & RECOMMEND ON CITY PARK LAND ACQUISITION
The City Commission is requesting review and comment on the land use and planning concerns regarding the purchase and property transaction for approximately six acres of undeveloped land located west of Mary’s Lake for additional City park land.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Riordan, seconded by Comm. Haase to consider Item 13 at the November 3 Planning Commission Mid-Month Meeting.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
ITEM NO. 14: RS-2 TO PRD-1; 38.423 ACRES; EAST OF MONTEREY WAY (EXTENDED) AND NORTH OF PETERSON ROAD (SLD)
Z-09-43-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 38.423 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District to PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development) District. The property is generally described as being located east of Monterey Way (extended) and north of Peterson Road. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, L.L.C., for North Forty, LC, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the request to rezone the subject property for a planned development. Staff recommended approval with conditions as listed in the Staff Report, but also provided wording for an alternate action of deferral if the Commission would prefer to consider the rezoning at the same time as a development plan.
Ms. Day showed the proposed street pattern based on approved plats, noting a number of private streets that would be able to connect to future adjacent development.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, said the applicant agreed with the recommendations of Staff.
It was discussed that the applicant would like to give the Commission a chance to state whether they would support a planned development of any kind in this location before starting on the development plan for the area. Comm. Eichhorn stated his support for this process. It was suggested that Staff’s condition tying the rezoning to a development plan would address concerns about what the future plan would look like.
Mr. Werner responded to questioning that approval of the rezoning at this time would also give the applicant an idea of what kind of density the Commission would like in this area.
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 questions or comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the rezoning of 38.423 acres from RS-2 to PRD-1 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. Approval of a preliminary development plan prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance; and
2. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried 7-1, with Comm.’s Burress, Haase, Riordan, Jennings, Johnson, Erickson, Krebs and Eichhorn voting favor. Comm. Johnson voted in opposition.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
Comm. Johnson responded to questioning that she voted in opposition because the Commission had set a precedent of not considering planned development rezonings without an accompanying development plan and she was not satisfied that the stated conditions accomplished that intent.
ITEM NO. 15A: RS-1 TO RO-1; 0.86 ACRES; A PORTION OF 1017 E. 23RD STREET (JLT)
Z-09-44-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 0.86 acres from RS-1 (Single-Family Residential) District to RO-1 (Residence-Office) District. The property is a portion of the parcel located at 1017 East 23rd Street (with frontage along E. 24th Street). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Larry Midyett, contract purchaser.
ITEM NO. 15B: C-4 & RS-1 TO C-4; 2.55 ACRES; 1017 E. 23RD STREET (JLT)
Z-09-45-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 2.55 acres from C-4 (General Commercial) District & RS-1 (Single-Family Residential) District to C-4 (General Commercial) District. The property is described as being located at 1017 East 23rd Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Larry Midyett, contract purchaser.
See Communications section of the minutes for original discussion of requested deferral.
Items 15A & 15B were discussed simultaneously, following Item 11.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff explained that the applicant and the neighborhood had used the meeting time to discuss their issues. All parties agreed to a deferral of Items 15A and 15B if supported by the Commission.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Jennings to defer Items 15A & 15B to the December 2004 meeting.
Motion carried 7-1, with Comm.’s Krebs, Jennings, Erickson, Haase, Burress, Riordan and Johnson voting in favor. Comm. Eichhorn voted in opposition.
ITEM NO. 15C: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MIDYETT OFFICE; 1017 E. 23RD STREET (JLT)
PP-09-20-04: Preliminary Plat for Midyett Office. This proposed commercial/office/residential subdivision contains approximately 3.41 acres and is located 1017 E. 23rd Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Larry Midyett, contract purchaser.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff explained the neighborhood group was amenable to the plat as proposed, with the addition of four conditions as presented by Staff.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
C.L. Maurer of Landplan Engineering was present on behalf of the applicant. He had no further comments or concerns to add beyond the presentation given at the beginning of the meeting in the original consideration of deferral. The applicant supported the recommendation of Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional questions or comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Johnson to approve the Preliminary Plat for Midyett Office, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
The Commission considered Items 12A & 12B at this point.
ITEM NO. 16A: A TO RM-1; 12.264 ACRES; NORTH OF W. 6TH STREET (HWY. 40) AND EAST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) (PGP)
Z-09-46-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 12.264 acres from A (Agricultural) to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6th Street (Hwy. 40) and east of George Williams Way (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Bluejacket Ford, LC, contract purchaser. Graycliff Holdings, L.C. is the property owner of record.
ITEM NO. 16B: A TO RS-2; 15.679 ACRES; NORTH OF W. 6TH STREET (HWY. 40) AND EAST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) (PGP)
Z-09-47-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 15.679 acres from A (Agricultural) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6th Street (Hwy. 40) and east of George Williams Way (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Bluejacket Ford, LC, contract purchaser. Graycliff Holdings L.C. is the property owner of record.
ITEM NO. 16C: A TO RM-D; 32.391 ACRES; NORTH OF W. 6TH STREET (HWY. 40) AND EAST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) (PGP)
Z-09-48-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 32.391 acres from A (Agricultural) to RM-D (Duplex Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6th Street (Hwy. 40) and east of George Williams Way (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Bluejacket Ford, LC, contract purchaser. Graycliff Holdings L.C. is the property owner of record.
ITEM NO. 16D: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OREGON TRAIL ADDITION; NORTH OF W. 6TH STREET (HWY. 40) AND EAST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) (PGP)
PP-09-22-04: Preliminary Plat for Oregon Trail Addition. This proposed single and multiple-family residential subdivision contains approximately 60.33 acres and is located north of W. 6th Street (Hwy. 40) and east of George Williams Way (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Bluejacket Ford, LC, contract purchaser. Graycliff Holdings L.C. is the property owner of record.
Items 16A, 16B & 16 C were discussed simultaneously. Item 16D was withdrawn prior to the meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson explained the preliminary plat (Item 16D) for this development had been withdrawn, but the applicant asked the Commission to consider the three accompanying rezoning requests (Items 16A, B & C) in anticipation of a new preliminary plat that would be on the November agenda.
Mr. Patterson showed a breakdown of the requested zonings on the overall subject area. He addressed circulation patterns between this development and its surroundings.
Staff recommended approval of the rezonings, conditioned upon approval of a final plat.
The Commission asked why the applicant was not requesting a planned residential development to accommodate the different densities and uses. Staff replied that planned development was intended for use only when conventional zoning would not allow the proposed project. That was not the case with this request so separate conventional zonings were requested.
Mr. Patterson showed that the northern boundary of this property formed the southern boundary of the Perry-Lecompton School District, meaning the entire subject property was within the Lawrence School District.
Staff was asked to explain why the Commission was being asked to consider piecemeal rezonings for this area before an area plan was adopted to decide how this property would interact with the larger area. Ms. Finger stated that an area plan had been adopted. The Northwest Area Plan (adopted in 1997), created with the combined efforts of City Staff and the neighborhood property owners, showed collector and arterial roads as well as intensity transitions. Zonings were not specified, but general land uses were identified and this request fit that adopted plan.
Comm. Burress expressed concern that the Commission did not have data to support Staff’s determination that this request followed the area plan. Ms. Finger replied that the Northwest Area Plan was provided to each Commissioner when they took office and was referenced throughout the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, was present on behalf of the applicant. He had no additional comments and stated agreement to the recommendations of Staff.
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. Krebs asked if it would be appropriate to ask the applicant to develop the property as a single planned residential development (PRD) instead of three separate pieces. Ms. Finger said a PRD should not be used if the project could be accomplished with conventional zoning. Comm. Krebs pointed out that PRD’s allowed the Commission to require additional greenspace, increased setbacks and other elements. Ms. Finger said those elements were adequate in the current proposal and requiring a PRD would not be of significant value to the city.
Mr. Herndon added that PRD’s were typically reserved for properties with unique qualities of development challenges. He said that PRD zoning carried a requirement for detailed landscaping plans that would be difficult to finance for a project of this size so early in the process.
Comm. Johnson said the Comprehensive Plan did not give direction that there was “something special to be acquired” from this property.
ACTION TAKEN
ITEM 16A
Motioned by Comm. Eichhorn, seconded by Comm. Riordan to approve the rezoning of 12.264 acres from A to RM-1 as presented by Staff.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Burress said he would oppose the motion because he did not feel the maps provided by Staff gave enough information on traffic circulation.
ACTIONS TAKEN
ITEM 16A
Motion on the floor was to approve the rezoning of 12.264 acres from A to RM-1 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 7-1, with Comm.’s Haase, Riordan, Jennings, Johnson, Erickson, Krebs and Eichhorn voting favor. Comm. Burress voted in opposition.
ITEM 16B
Motioned by Comm. Eichhorn, seconded by Comm. Jennings to approve the rezoning of 15.679 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 7-1, with Comm.’s Haase, Riordan, Jennings, Johnson, Erickson, Krebs and Eichhorn voting favor. Comm. Burress voted in opposition.
ITEM 16C
Motioned by Comm. Eichhorn, seconded by Comm. Krebs to approve the rezoning of 32.391 acres from A to RM-D 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 7-1, with Comm.’s Haase, Riordan, Jennings, Johnson, Erickson, Krebs and Eichhorn voting favor. Comm. Burress voted in opposition.
MISCELLANEOUS ITEM 1 – Reconsider Cornerstone Plaza II Final Plat
The Commission was asked to reconsider the cross access easement required on the approved plat for Cornerstone Plaza II [PF-07-22-04].
The Commission took no action on this item, so it will be placed on the November 2004 agenda.
MISCELLANEOUS ITEM 2 – Initiate Text Amendment for Chapter 7 of HORIZON 2020
Motioned by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Jennings to initiate a Text Amendment amending the updated Chapter 7 – Industrial & Employment-Related Land Use into HORIZON 2020 and place it on the January 2005 Planning Commission agenda for public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
MISCELLANEOUS ITEM 3 – Other Business
Chairman Haase announced the resignation of Comm. Johnson for health reasons and thanked her for her hard work and dedication during her term of service.
ADJOURN - 12:25 a.m., October 28, 2004
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department.