Planning Commission Agenda Meeting
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Room; February 17th & 23rd, 2005
_______________________________________________________________________
February 17, 2005 – 7:20 p.m.
Commissioners present: Angino, Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan
Staff Present: Finger, Stogsdill, Ahrens, Day, Hauschild, Patterson and Saker
_______________________________________________________________________
The Commission noted revisions that made per their request prior to the meeting.
Motioned by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the January 2005 meeting minutes as revised.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0
CPC: The Committee met to work on neighborhood plans.
TAC: The Committee met twice to finalize their recommendations on the two transportation-related items on the regular agenda.
PCMM: The February Mid-Month meeting was cancelled due to inclement weather.
The following communications were noted as part of the Study Session prior to the agenda meeting:
General
Misc. Item 3 – Returned rezonings for Lake Estates
Item 12 – Annexation and rezonings north of Highway 40, east of K-10 Highway
· Comm. Burress said he had received a phone call from George Paley about Misc. 3. He said he told Mr. Paley he could discuss procedure but not the substance of the case and advised Mr. Paley to send his communications to Staff.
· Comm. Ermeling said she had held similar discussions with Mr. Paley.
· There were no abstentions indicated.
The Commission discussed the applicant’s request to defer Items 10A – 10C for one month. Staff responded to questioning that this was a public hearing item and could not meet the publication deadlines for the March meeting. The Items could return no sooner than April.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to defer Items 10A – 10C for one month.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
There was a request to pull Items 1 & 2 from the Consent Agenda and move Item 1 to consider after hearing the presentation from KDOT (Misc. 2) because of the implications of 6th Street access on this project.
The Commission approved Item 3 on the Consent Agenda.
ITEM NO 3: 2004-2008 TRANSPORATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) PROJECTS AMENDMENT (WA)
Consider amending the 2004-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to include the following projects:
Motioned by Comm. Lawson, Seconded by Comm. Jennings to approve the amendment to the 2004-2008 TIP as presented by Staff.
Motion carried unanimously as part of the Consent Agenda, 10-0.
ITEM NO 2: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FOX CHASE SOUTH NO. 3; NORTH OF LONGLEAF DRIVE, SOUTH OF FOX CHASE SOUTH AND WEST OF FOX CHASE EAST (SLD)
PP-01-01-05: Preliminary Plat for Fox Chase South No. 3. This proposed 105-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 42.60 acres. The property is generally described as being located south of Harvard Road, east of George Williams Way, west and south of Fox Chase South No. 2. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Marla LLC, Remco LC, and Devco, Inc., property owners of record.
Comm. Burress said he pulled the item from the Consent Agenda to ask Staff to respond to the letter from the League of Women Voters expressing concerns about access. Ms. Day said the League’s specific comment had been a request to consider connecting the two cul-de-sacs in the center of the development. Staff noted the connection provided to the greenspace to the west and east sides of the property. Ms. Day explained there was no statutory requirement for the developer to provide the connection described by the League, but this element could be required at the Commission’s discretion. The applicant had not provided the connection and had indicated no intent to do so, but was asked to be prepared to discuss the issue.
Tim Herndon of Landplan Engineering spoke on behalf of the applicant, referencing the two tracts of land involved in the League’s suggestion. He detailed the uses that connected to the separate east and west tracts and explained the applicant’s “strong preference” to retain the cul-de-sac design as shown. Mr. Herndon said he understood there was one school of thought that believed connection should be made in every possible case, but said applicant had a right to build for the definite market for cul-de-sac lots. He noted that these were the only cul-de-sacs in the 105-lot subdivision.
Comm. Burress said the primary argument against cul-de-sacs was the extended distance that had to be traveled to get from one place to another. Mr. Herndon said the distance in this case was not much more than a few feet and said the concept of neighborhood connectivity was preserved by the proposed design because of topographical challenges to other kinds of pedestrian connections. He said constructing 270 feet of poorly-lit, privately-maintained sidewalk was a poor solution. Comm. Burress said he thought the additional travel distance created by the cul-de-sacs in this case was significant.
Mr. Herndon responded to questioning that connectivity was one of many factors that must be weighed when designing a project. He said it was not appropriate to “throw away” all other factors to achieve one factor to its fullest degree.
The Commission discussed the possibility of school children walking between the cul-de-sacs to reach Langston Hughes Elementary School, either by using a constructed sidewalk or by cutting across the yards. Comm. Krebs noted that, without cutting across, a child would have to walk an additional quarter-mile, which she felt was a significant distance for a young child.
Comm. Burress said he was undecided about the issue and commented that this was “not the worst case of disconnectivity” the Commission had seen. He noted that the topography of the area would be challenging to a child or handicapped person.
Comm. Burress spoke about making cul-de-sacs rare and therefore costly, a cost that should be absorbed by the developer and passed on to the buyer in exchange for the detriment to the public (loss of connectivity).
Vice-Chair Riordan suggested that this was a frequent discussion and the issue should be placed on the Parking Lot List. He said the Commission needed to make a determination on the issue so developers knew what was expected. Comm. Burress agreed that this should be a Parking Lot discussion item and said he would continue to support connections whenever possible.
Comm. Lawson said he did not see this development placing an overt burden on the public and, in his personal experience, living on a cul-de-sac was a benefit.
There was discussion about children walking to school, touching on various issues:
· Longer walking distances vs. higher connectivity (to encourage walking) to reduce childhood obesity
· Travel convenience and ease
· Safety, not distance, as a reason for driving kids to school
Comm. Jennings spoke about the added maintenance and liability placed on the property owners for the connecting sidewalk. Comm. Lawson said it was not the developer’s responsibility to build every lot to fit every public preference. Buyers were free to look elsewhere to find lots that suited their particular needs. Comm. Erickson pointed out that connecting the cul-de-sacs would require reconfiguration of the lots.
Motioned by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Jennings to approve the Preliminary Plat for Foxchase South No.3 based on Staff’s findings of fact and subject to the conditions in the Staff Report.
Motioned by Comm. Burress to amend the motion on the floor to add a condition requiring redesign of the project to provide a pedestrian connection between the east and west cul-de-sacs.
Motion dies for lack of second.
Motion on the floor was to approve the Preliminary Plat for Foxchase South No. 3, based on the findings presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried 9-1, with Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Comm. Burress voted in opposition.
MISC. ITEM NO. 1: DISCUSSION WITH KDOT ON W. 6TH STREET ACCESS ISSUES
Mr. Ahrens explained that a number of items related to W. 6th Street had come before the Commission in the recent past, bringing with them concerns about the future capacity of that corridor and the impact of land use decisions. Terry Heidner, Director of Planning & Development for KDOT, introduced other KDOT representatives who were in attendance to present their concerns and answer questions about this issue.
Mr. Heidner said KDOT appreciated the close working relationship between themselves and City Staff. He referenced the increased number of high-density development proposals on W. 6th Street and expressed KDOT’s concern, shared by the Commission and Staff, about the ability of the transportation infrastructure to handle this kind of development. He said KDOT did not intent to tell the city what kind of development to allow, but they wanted to be involved in considering how developments impacted transportation.
Mr. Heidner said KDOT was receiving multiple requests to open more access points along the corridor, which they opposed. The street was designed to operate with access points at ˝ - Ľ mile intervals and breaking that standard had created problems in the past in other areas of the city.
Mr. Heidner said approved developments at W. 6th Street & George Williams Way were already of concern to KDOT and they did not know if the intersection could be built to handle some of the proposals they had been asked to review this. He said that both the City and KDOT tended to look at development proposals individually. Neither body had looked at the cumulative effects of approved developments, which could be overwhelming.
KDOT proposed running a computer simulation model (CORSIM) of the 2.5-mile section of the corridor to show the impacts of existing, approved and potential development based on the land use plan (HORIZON 2020). It was KDOT’s interest to see that, if allowed to develop to the full extent indicated in HORIZON 2020, the corridor would face serious transportation issues.
Rob Ott, Corridor Management Administrator for KDOT, outlined the series of meetings KDOT would like to have with City Staff and officials to consider the cumulative impacts revealed by the computer modeling described by Mr. Heidner. He said the city may choose to have local developers included in these discussions.
In response to questioning, Mr. Ott described the elements that were included in the modeling process. Comm. Angino asked if the model was based on the assumption that there would be no major east-west connections between Folks Road and the bypass. Mr. Ott replied that the model would be run based on the roads shown on the approved Major Thoroughfares Map.
*Discussion from this point is relevant to Agenda Item1.
Comm. Jennings noted that the corridor study area did not extend beyond the bypass, but the Commission had postponed tonight making a decision on property west of that boundary (Agenda Item 1-Final Plat 1st Methodist Church).
Discussion by KOT and Staff established that funding for improvements beyond the bypass would not be available until at least 2010. KDOT expressed no objection at this time to the placement of the single driveway as proposed. There was no way of predicting whether a new road would be constructed at the western edge of the project property (requiring different or additional access), so that situation would need to be reconsidered when road improvements were in the foreseeable future.
Vice-Chair Riordan referenced KDOT’s comment (given to the applicant and submitted to the Commission in written form at the January meeting) that the access proposed at the bottom of the hill was the only appropriate location because of restricted sight-lines at other locations. He asked if KDOT had any idea whether the area would be significantly altered with the construction of the (potential) new road, creating better sight lines and making other access points a safe, viable alternative?
Tim Herndon of Landplan Engineering spoke on behalf of the applicant for Agenda Item 1, explaining the construction intent of the church, residence and parking lot. He said the residential building would access W. 6th Street via a private drive at the crest of the hill. A church facility of up to 20,000 square feet was approved for construction, taking access from this same private drive. If W. 6th Street was improved west of the SLT in the future, a second access could be added with the construction of a collector road along the western edge of the property. This access would maintain KDOT’s preferred access spacing of Ľ-mile.
Mr. Ott interjected that KDOT’s preference for a fully-directional intersection was actually ˝-mile from the interchange. He added that a traffic signal may be required at such an intersection as well.
Chairman Haase said the private drive access shown on the plat was designated as a temporary access. He asked if this was KDOT’s preference. Mr. Ott said it was possible the access would be redesigned as a right-in/right-out but it was not possible to say exactly when this would be.
Thomas Dow from the Bureau of Transportation Planning said the current transportation model extended only to the SLT/K-10. He asked if it would be helpful if the model extended further to the west. The Commission agreed this would be beneficial for their long-range planning efforts, as well as for considering some current land use proposals.
Mr. Dow said extending the model was possible, but results would become less reliable the further the model extended into areas without definite land use decisions to fuel the program. The intent of the current model was to show the impacts of approved development. A separate model would have to be developed to estimate the impact of various kinds of development in extended areas. Recalibrating the current model was not a simple task and would delay results.
It was established that the model would not involve the complete city street network, but would focus on US Highway 40/W. 6th Street and street intersecting with it. Comm. Angino expressed concern that the model would not fully take into account the lack of east-west connections in this area. It was established that the model was kept up-to-date by using existing traffic counts.
Chairman Haase referenced the Staff Report statement that the city and KDOT agreed about access management issues east of Highway K-10. He suggested the elected officials should begin discussions about access west of Highway K-10.
In response to Commission discussion, Ms. Finger commented that there were two types of transportation models. This CORSIM model was not a long-range, total build-out study.
Chairman Haase expressed his wish that a study begin to look at land mass, calculate densities and estimate trip generation based on assumptions of land use. It was noted that some of these elements are included in Staff’s work on the Northwest Plan and data from that plan is superseded only by Transportation 2025 and adopted nodal plans.
The Commission agreed their discussion was relevant to Agenda Item 1 and moved on to that item at this time.
ITEM NO 1: FINAL PLAT FOR FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH; SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND WEST OF HIGHWAY K-10 (PGP)
PF-01-01-05: Final Plat for First United Methodist Church. This proposed church site contains approximately 67.45 acres. The property is generally described as being located south of Highway 40 and west of Highway K-10. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for First United Methodist Church, and Gateway West Land Holding Co., LLC, property owners of record.
*This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda to consider after Misc. 1. See discussion of Misc. 1 for discussion relevant to Item 1.
Mr. Patterson explained the request to plat the subject property into two lots, one for a proposed church and one for future development. He referenced an email forwarded to Staff from the applicant, clarifying the applicant’s understanding of the timing of access improvements.
Staff recommended approval of the plat, subject to the conditions provided in the Staff Report.
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, said he hoped access concerns were met by the explanation that the temporary access did not have to solely serve the church part of the project. He said that access would be placed where it was appropriate today, based on sight lines and other factors. If sight distances changed in the future (with street improvements to W. 6th Street) access would be revised at that time. He commented that a lot of time had been spent trying to get approval of a location on this Final Plat.
Chairman Haase asked if the revised access, moved 260 feet to the east, would fit the Ľ-mile spacing and would be a right-in/right-out access point. Mr. Herndon said this was the first time he had heard anyone mention a right-in/right-out access and this change would significantly alter how the site would operate on final build out. He said the applicant had anticipated a signalized intersection, but understood study would be needed to determine need of this control device.
Mr. Herndon said the applicant had already gone through the “contrived process” of dedicating an additional 80’ of right-of-way in anticipation of a new collector street that no one could guarantee would ever be built. He said requiring the change to a right-in/right-out access was not commensurate with the applicant’s efforts, but the applicant’s preferences were clear and this possible change did not preclude the proposal on the table tonight.
Chairman Haase asked KDOT representatives to clarify their perspective on the access issue. Mr. Dow said ramp traffic entering and exiting the SLT would be significantly disrupted by a traffic signal at the location proposed for access.
Mr. Herndon asked to state for the record that “all parties” met on December 22nd and talked for over 2 hours. It was his understanding that all parties had left that meeting in agreement over the plat as shown today.
The Commission agreed to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m.
The Commission asked for clarification on which of the shown access points was temporary and which were intended (by the applicant) to be permanent. Ms. Finger explained that the property was guaranteed access to a public right-of-way, but there was no guarantee that such access would be full. Staff would disagree with the applicant about the communication of this point, or that this was the first time a comment about right-in/right-out access was made. Mr. Ott added that the property’s legal right to public access did not guarantee access to a State highway.
Mr. Herndon expressed frustration at the “new information” about the possible change in access to a right-in/right-out. Chairman Haase asked if the applicant would like to defer the item to review how this possibility would impact the development. Mr. Herndon stated the applicant’s wish that the Commission act on the request tonight and not delay this project any further.
It was discussed that KDOT could move an access point at any time. However, if the plat stated full, permanent access, it would tie both the city and KDOT to that point in time. The Commission considered how to word an unbiased condition that would communicate the possible revision of access based on future need with W. 6th Street improvements. Staff proposed language for such a condition:
Provision of a revised Final Plat to include the General Note, “Level of access will be determined at such time as geometric improvements are designed for this section of Highway 40.”
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the Final Plat subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report and the additional condition as worded by Staff.
The meeting was disrupted by members of the public in support of the project expressing objection to the possible closing or restriction of the shown access point. It was established that the added condition did not guarantee that access would be revised. It also did not promise that full (or any) access to Highway K-10 would be permanent. The intent was to convey the fact that changing the access was KDOT’s prerogative at any time and would have to be studied in light of future road improvements.
Comm. Burress asked to call the question. The Commission expressed no objection to coming to an immediate vote.
Motion on the floor was to approve the Final Plat for First United Methodist Church and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following revised 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; and
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
2. Execution of updated Agreements Not to Protest the formation of a future Benefit District for:
a. Public sanitary sewer and waterline improvements; and
b. Collector street and sidewalk improvements.
3. Pinning of the lot corners, per Section 21-302.2;
4. Revise the Street names on the Final Plat to also include the county road E911 designation, E____ (Aldersgate Road) and E____ (John Wesley Drive); and
5. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include the General Note, “Level of access will be determined at such time as geometric improvements are designed for this section of Highway 40.”
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Chairman Haase called a 5-minute recess, during which Comm. Lawson left.
Meeting reconvened at 9:30 p.m.
The Commission agreed to extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m.
The Commission agreed to move Misc. 2 to the end of the evening’s considerations and take up Misc. 3 at this time.
MISC. ITEM NO. 3: OLD BUSINESS
Receive City Commission
actions and February 1st draft minutes on proposed Lake Estates annexation
and rezoning requests [A-10-05-04], [Z-10-50-04], and [Z-10-51A-04].The City Commission considered denial at their
February 1, 2005 meeting. At the February 15, 2005 meeting, the City Commission reconsidered their action of
Februray 1st and clarified their action. They returned the items to
the Planning
Commission for
reconsideration, based on the record established at the February 1st
City Commission meeting.
Staff explained that the City Commission, at their 2/15/05 meeting took action to clarify their intent on 2/1/05 to return two rezonings to the Planning Commission with direction to reconsider the items in light of the concerns they (City Commission) expressed at their 2/1/05 meeting. Ms. Finger added that the reason the Planning Commission was receiving this back was that they had recommended approval of the rezonings, and a City Commission action to overturn this recommendation (deny the requests) failed to obtain the necessary super-majority vote.
The rezonings were complicated by the splitting of the original (RM-D) request. The Planning Commission had recommended approval of rezoning a portion of the subject property to RS-1, using the Lesser Change Table (Z-10-51A-04). The remaining portion of the request was tabled and the Planning Commission initiated rezoning to the new RS5 designation proposed in the new Development Code (Z-10-51B-04 on the regular agenda as Item 7).
The Planning Commission’s options regarding the returned rezonings were:
The draft City Commission minutes for 2/1/05 had not yet been available. Staff summarized the City Commission’s discussion from the 2/1/05 meeting. The governing body talked about the necessity for and merits of developing an area plan before approving any more development in this area. Other issues were traffic impacts on neighbors to the north and density transitions, as well as testimony by the Breithaupt’s (area property owners) about west-bound traffic cutting through their property. The City Commission also discussed the applicant’s original proposal to place a barricade across E920 Road to prevent cut-through traffic. Staff had been given no specific direction other than to consider these concerns.
Ms. Finger responded to questioning that beginning an area plan would take until the end of 2005, possibly early 2006. Ms. Day explained another option, a service delivery plan that would look at provision of public services within a framework of a 1.5-mile square neighborhood. This kind of plan would take less time, approximately 6 months to complete.
Staff’s recommendations for approval were unchanged from the original Staff Reports.
Comm. Angino stated that, in plain terms, the City Commission was asking the Planning Commission to change their opinion. He pointed out that, no matter what action the Planning Commission took tonight, the City Commission could take any action (including overturning) with a simple majority vote.
Ms. Finger responded to questioning that the Code stated reconsideration of an item should be based on new information from the City Commission or other sources that was not available when the original public hearing was held. In Staff’s opinion, no new information was provided. If the Planning Commission was comfortable with their November action based on public hearing testimony, they should maintain their position (the vote was unanimous at that time). She added that this did not preclude initiating a service delivery plan for the area, either tied to or separate from the rezonings.
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to take no action on returned items Z-10-50-04 and Z-10-51A-04.
Comm. Ermeling said she saw merit in the idea of a service delivery plan, based on existing and approved development, as well as serious transportation concerns.
Comm. Burress stated his opposition to a position of “no action”. Since this was interpreted legally as a reaffirmation of their original opinion, he felt the Commission should make a stronger statement – if that was their choice – and act to reaffirm. He added that he would have supported the development of an area plan, but it would delay this project too long. He commented that future development was fairly constrained by existing development and there was not a lot of new information to be provided by an area plan. He was not sure about the implications of a service delivery plan.
Ms. Finger explained that service delivery plans looked at timing and sometimes financing of infrastructure. This might be especially helpful for considerations about when, where and how to make a street connection to the west. The Commission discussed whether a service delivery plan should be tied to the rezonings or separate.
Comm. Erickson referenced the concerns about cut-through traffic and the applicant’s original proposal to place a barricade across E920 Road. She noted that this went against the principle of connectivity, which the Commission seemed to be promoting. It was verified that the Planning Commission had no authority to make a decision about the barricade.
Comm. Angino stated that, since there was no new evidence, changing their position would be interpreted as an admission that “we did not know what we were doing the first time”. Vice-Chair Riordan suggested that the concept of a service delivery plan was new and could be used as a basis for reconsideration. Comm. Jennings expressed concern that the Commission would begin receiving back all its decisions if they could not be “taken seriously” and began “waffling” on a unanimous vote.
Comm. Angino asked if the area plan was being used as a delaying tactic? He said if the Commission wanted to apply this requirement consistently to every development proposal, it should be written in to the regulations.
Comm. Eichhorn asked to call the question, Comm.’s Ermeling and Burress expressed opposition.
Motion on the floor was amended to reaffirm the Commission’s decisions at the November 2004 meeting. These actions included:
Z-10-50-04: Rezoning 3.6348 acres from A to RS-1 using the Lesser Change Table (original request was for RS-2)
Z-10-51A-04: Rezoning 5.0277 acres from A to RS-1 using the Lesser Change Table (original request was for RM-D, modified to RS-2 by the applicant)
Motion carried 8-1, with Comm.’s Angino, Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Jennings, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor. Comm. Ermeling voted in opposition.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to initiate a service delivery plan for the subject area
It was established that the intent of the motion was that the service delivery plan be undertaken separately from the rezonings and the plan was not meant to delay the development proposal. It was understood that the City Commission had authority to make changes to the Planning Commission’s recommendations.
Comm. Burress expressed concern that there was no information about when the road would go through.
Motion on the floor was to initiate a service delivery plan for the subject area with no ties to any development proposals in the area.
Motion carried 6-3, with Comm.’s Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor. Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn and Jennings voted in opposition.
The Commission discussed this item further at the regular agenda meeting on February 23rd per the direction of the City Commission. See minutes for the regular agenda meeting for additional comments and action.
MISC. ITEM NO. 2: RESTRUCTURING OF THE MPO
For transportation planning purposes, the Lawrence/Douglas County Planning Commission is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Lawrence/Douglas County metropolitan region. The current MPO structure, which has been in place since Douglas County was designated in 1982, does not fully satisfy current federal regulations concerning MPO membership and composition, nor does it meet the transportation planning needs of the region as growth continues.
Mr. Ahrens referenced the information provided about the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), its background and organization alternatives. He explained that federal law required any community with a population of 50,000 or more to designate an MPO to receive federal funding. Lawrence reached that threshold in 1980 and the Planning Commission was designated by the Governor as the MPO in 1982.
National MPO requirements and duties were drastically overhauled in 1991. Locally, the MPO boundary was redesignated in 1991 according to the new regulations, but the existing MPO membership was grandfathered and allowed to remain in place although it did not meet the new regulations.
The boundary expansion encompassed all of Douglas County to encourage consistency with land use planning and other elements. There had been discussion at TAC about changing MPO membership according the 1991 regulations to provide fairer representation for all of the incorporated cities of Douglas County and to include elected officials and representatives from transit agencies. Local restructuring was not required because of the grandfather provision. However, Staff suggested reconsideration of the current MPO structure because it provided inadequate representation for other incorporated cities and elected official, and it was sensible to meet all the current requirements.
Commissioners suggested that the Planning Commission remain as the MPO, with additional representatives from other cities. There was discussion about the inherent difficulties in groups too large to work efficiently. It was established that inviting non-voting representatives to take part in discussions did not meet the 1991 requirements.
Staff recommended restructuring the MPO as a separate body from the Planning Commission, although some Commissioners should be members of the new MPO. Staff suggested the next step would be a joint study session on what the MPO is and what it does. A number of alternatives for membership make up were possible under the current federal regulations.
The Commission agreed to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m.
Comm. Angino asked if there was concern that the MPO, as structured, was not working? Otherwise, what was prompting the look at restructuring the body? Staff replied that the concern was not a deficiency on the part of the existing MPO, but with inadequate representation for all incorporated cities.
KDOT representatives were asked to comment on how pressing the need was to restructure the MPO. Thomas Dow, KDOT Bureau of Transportation, said federal regulations did not require restructuring and KDOT did not want to “force the issue”. However, it was clear the region was considering restructuring and KDOT would support that effort.
Mr. Dow said the Planning Commission was an appointed body, and there was some concern that elected officials should be involved in the MPO because it made decisions about how resources (funding) were used.
It was established that the intent of tonight’s discussion was not to finalize the new membership make up, but to decide if the MPO wanted to pursue restructuring.
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Angino to direct Staff to investigate restructuring options for the Douglas County MPO.
Vice-Chair Riordan asked how the Planning Commission was originally designated as the MPO and if they had the authority to make the proposed changes. Staff replied that designation was done through an agreement between the KDOT (given authority from the Governor) and the City of Lawrence (as 75% of those represented within the MPO boundary) and Douglas County.
Chairman Haase said it appeared that neither KDOT nor the MPO was pressing the idea of restructuring and asked who initiated the topic. Ms. Finger said restructuring the MPO had been mentioned for 2 years at TAC and was mentioned the MPO’s annual review. Staff was therefore surprised by tonight’s comment that KDOT was not “pushing” the issue. Staff had placed the issue on the agenda with the impression that KDOT and the FHA “strongly encouraged” the change.
Chairman Haase noted that the city of Lawrence and the unincorporated areas comprised the majority of the entire MPO boundary. He suggested the current MPO makeup may not be perfect, but was the best functional representation of the area. He questioned whether the concept should be pursued if there was no significant reason. Mr. Dow said KDOT’s Director of Planning and Development, Terry Heidner, stated specifically that KDOT would not “push the issue”. The comments in the annual reviews were intended to “provide support for the MPO to include smaller cities in the process.”
Byron Low, Federal Highway Administration, agreed that, because Douglas County’s MPO was designated before 1991, restructuring was a suggestion not a mandate.
It was noted that, if the MPO was redesignated, the new body may choose to change how funding is distributed.
There was discussion about how frequently the Planning Commission acted in its capacity as the MPO and what kinds of issues were its responsibility.
The motion was restated and clarified that Staff would bring to the Planning Commission (MPO) study results and a proposal of MPO requirements and organization options. The body would decide at that time what to do with that recommendation.
Motion on the floor was to direct Staff to investigate options for restructuring the Douglas County MPO.
Motion carried 7-2, With Comm.’s Angino, Burress, Eichhorn, Ermeling, Haase, Jennings and Krebs voting in favor. Comm.’s Ermeling and Riordan voted in opposition.
The Commission agreed to extend the meeting indefinitely until there was a motion to recess.
MISC. ITEM NO. 4: DOUGLAS COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Paula Phillips, Director of Emergency Management for Douglas County, said the Department hired a consultant in Fall 2004 at the request of the County Commission. The consultant was directed to create a mitigation plan, which was now required by local governments in order to pursue federal funding for emergency mitigation or disaster recovery for schools, government offices, etc.
The Commission was not asked to take any action at this time, but to review the given information and provide input as a body or as individuals.
Ms. Phillips provided an outline of the goals and objectives of a mitigation plan, as well as a list of 15 recommended mitigation strategies. The County Commission had discussed this information and asked that it be distributed to the Planning Commission and to the public at large. The Emergency Management Department hoped to have a mitigation plan adopted by September 2005 to make the area eligible for funds. Comments from the Planning Commission were requested by May 1st.
MISC ITEM NO. 5 PROPOSAL FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT EXPANSION AND REORGANIZATION (D. BURRESS)
Comm. Burress said not all of his suggestions could be discussed tonight because of time constraints. He asked the Commission to concentrate on his proposal to send a resolution to the City Commission to expand Planning Staff by three full employees. He said his estimated need for three Staff members was based on his understanding of current workload and asked for Staff input on this suggestion.
Ms. Finger said it would be difficult to determine how many additional Staff members would be adequate without knowing future expectations. She suggested it would be more beneficial for the city to hire a consultant to review the entire development process, including all departments involved. She could support a study of how the process was lacking or inefficient before making decisions about additional staffing.
There was discussion about getting the consultant study included in the 2006 budget so changes could possibly be proposed for the 2007 budget.
Chairman Haase stated for the record that the study suggested by Staff closely resembled the information he brought back from the 2004 APA Conference and that a comprehensive review of the development process was overdue.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to send a resolution to the City Commission to include in the 2006 budget funding to hire a consultant to study the entire development process and create recommendations in time for the 2007 budget cycle for revising the process and changing staffing.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Meeting recessed at 10:15 p.m.
_______________________________________________________________________
February 23, 2005 - meeting reconvened at 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Day, Hauschild, Patterson and Saker
______________________________________________________________________
Ms. Finger outlined the following communications:
General
· Study Session summary
Misc. Item 3
· Draft City Commission minutes from February 15, 2005 regarding return of Lake Estates rezonings to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is asked to reconsider their action of February 17, 2005 in light of these minutes.
Item 12 – Annexation and rezonings north of Highway 40, east of K-10 Highway
· Memo from Staff conveying the applicant’s request for deferral of Items 12A – 12F (received after Study Session)
No ex parte communications were declared and no abstentions were indicated.
Motioned by Comm. Erickson, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to defer Items 12A – 12F for one month per Staff recommendation and the request of the applicant.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
The Commission acknowledged the City Commission’s request that they reconsider their 2/17/05 action on the Lake Estates rezonings (Misc. 3: Z-10-50-04 & Z-10-15A-04) in light of the City Commission’s 2/15/04 draft minutes, which were now available for review. The Planning Commission agreed to take up Misc. 3 again at the beginning of tonight’s meeting. They also agreed to move Items 7 & 8 for consideration immediately following Misc. 3.
See consideration of Misc. 3 on 2/17/05 for previous discussion and action to reaffirm. Much of the 2/23/05 discussion for Misc. 3 was directly related to Items 7 & 8.
MISC ITEM NO. 3: SECOND RECONSIDERATION OF REZONINGS
Z-10-50-04: Rezoning 3.6348 acres from A to RS-1 using the Lesser Change Table (original request was for RS-2)
Z-10-51A-04: Rezoning 5.0277 acres from A to RS-1 using the Lesser Change Table (original request was for RM-D)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day reiterated the City Commission’s request that the Planning Commission look again at their action(s) regarding the two rezonings, taking into consideration the concerns and direction provided in the City Commission’s 2/15/04 draft minutes. The draft minutes suggested the Planning Commission consider three issues in particular:
1. Appropriateness of the requested rezoning in comparison with existing development and development approvals in the surrounding area.
2. Supporting the concept of an area plan. It was verified that the City Commission had already initiated such a plan.
3. Possibility of closing E920 Road to through traffic. It was clarified that the Planning Commission had no authority to make this decision, but the City Commission wanted input on the appropriateness of such a requirement. It was also noted that blocking the street would create a cul-de-sac in excess of the 1320’ maximum.
Staff responded to questioning that the service delivery plan recommended by the Planning Commission would be an appropriate action step before or after development of an area plan. Chairman Haase referenced the comment in the Staff Report that so much of the surrounding area was already defined, so an area plan would have little influence on future development. Staff said that this addendum was given to the Planning Commission as part of Preliminary Plat consideration and had not been initially provided to the City Commission. It was suggested that the addendum information could be put more firmly into the area plan format.
The Commission asked Staff if any new information had surfaced that would justify another consideration of these items. Ms. Finger replied that the area plan process would allow residents to comment on their preference for area development. She said a number of residents were likely to speak in support of large-lot, low-density development. This was the only new information Staff expected to receive in the area plan process.
It was verified that an area plan would take about a year to complete because of other projects in line ahead of this project. Breaking the plan into sections was a possibility because there was currently no adopted definition for the size of an area plan. Staff recommended any area plan encompass the entire neighborhood, in this case about 1.5 miles wide, and pointed out that the length of time to complete a smaller plan would be substantially the same.
Commissioners discussed with Staff the complications of the City Commission’s vote and the inability to obtain the super-majority vote needed to overturn the Planning Commission’s original recommendation for approval.
Staff was asked to show the proposed boundaries for the area plan and to outline the major traffic issues.
Several points were raised:
· The Clinton Parkway intersection to the south was designated for a roundabout.
· E920 Road is not yet inside the city limits and thus is not designated for traffic calming devices. These decisions would come as part of a development proposal after annexation.
· The development proposed for the subject area includes 48 additional residential units.
· A service delivery plan would look at timing and possibly financing of municipal services for annexed properties. The existing constraints on the surrounding area do not leave many options for service provision.
Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, was allowed to speak on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Keeney referenced the City Commission’s action the previous night to delay the new Development Code for at least 6 months for additional review. He pointed out that this made Item 7 a moot point, since the RS5 zoning district would not be available until the new code was adopted.
Mr. Keeney said the RM-D zoning originally requested was “clearly unacceptable” to the Planning Commission, and he felt the revised RS-1 request (Item 8) was a good compromise to work with all parties involved. He proposed revising the request further to rezone the entire southern portion of the request area RS-2.
Mr. Keeney pointed out the current cul-de-sac street configuration of Lake Estates Drive approved by the Planning and City Commission’s exceeded the 1320’ regulatory maximum. He said the applicant anticipated the concern of the Fire & Medical Department over this cul-de-sac when the property began to develop. Mr. Keeney described a traffic element proposed by the applicant in original discussions with Staff – elimination of the cul-de-sac and placement of a temporary barricade across E 920 Road to prevent cut-through traffic to the north. The barricade had sensors that would allow access for emergency vehicles. The applicant suggested a sunset provision to have the barricade removed as development pressures took hold of the area. Mr. Keeney presented a letter from Rich Barr of the City’s Fire & Medical Department indicating no objection to the sensory barricade as long as it would not block emergency access in either direction.
The applicant understood from previous discussions that the primary concerns were traffic and density. He explained how the original request had been modified (as seen in Items 7 & 8) to work with all parties involved to address these concerns. Changes included using the Lesser Change Table to apply RS-1 & RS-2 zoning instead of RM-D and using the sensory barricade instead of a cul-de-sac or full-access street in a revised proposal for the area.
Mr. Keeney said the city could do an area plan as discussed, by the subject area was already part of existing plans (Western Development Plan, West Lawrence Master Plan) and was one of the “most intensely planned areas in the county.” He noted a portion of the subject area that was not included in previous plans because of ownership issues.
Mr. Keeney said the issue of an area plan was left open and described several sections of the area had already been assigned a land use or had an obvious purpose (transition, right-of-way, etc.) making an area plan redundant. He said there was some “wiggle room” in the question of density, but the subject property would obviously be residentially developed.
Mr. Keeney said he understood the concerns of area residents and the political pressures against making street connections now. However, the land had been included in the Urban Growth Area for many years and the streets were obviously meant to connect. He suggested his modified proposal would provide temporary solutions to conflicting resident preferences.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff was asked to respond to the applicant’s modified proposal. Ms. Day said the applicant’s presentation mixed Items 7 & 8 with Misc. 3 and it would be more appropriate to discuss the revised rezoning requests during their respective public hearings. Staff also clarified that the City Commission specifically initiated the area plan and this issue was not “left open”.
It was verified with the applicant that there were 127 residences proposed for the development south of Lake Estates. The modified rezoning proposed by Mr. Keeney (RM-D to RS-1 in Item 8) would reduce the number of proposed residential units from 32 to 14.
There was discussion about an appropriate “sunset” time limit for the sensory activated barricade. Mr. Keeney responded to questioning that the overall area would redevelop fairly soon and everyone could recognize that the street needed to connect. The sensory activated barricade addressed the concerns of some residents in the interim, but Mr. Keeney said it should be clear that this was a temporary solution.
Comm. Krebs asked if the City Commission was concerned about adequate access to the north, or about an increased use of a county road that was not maintained to an appropriate level?
Ms. Day said specific comments from various parties included:
1. significant increase in cut-through traffic from south to north – increased strangers in neighborhood and making a local road function as a collector
2. preference for young drivers to access to the south to Clinton Parkway
3. transition from city street to county road
Comm. Jennings asked if the gate could be conditioned for removal when the street was annexed and improved to city standards. Mr. Finger said implementation would be complicated and require coordination between the City and County Commissions. Deciding whether to close the street or use the sensor activated gate and picking a suitable sunset date would be appropriate to consider as part of the area plan.
There was discussion about a road extending through the Breithaupt property to the west. One of the property owners had expressed opposition at the City Commission meeting to this possibility and stated that they would not dedicate the right-of-way needed for this extension. City Commission action would be needed to purchase the right-of-way (if they extended now). The City Commission had taken no action in that direction.
Mr. Keeney was allowed to address this issue as well. He said the Breithaupt’s did not oppose the development or the road, but they were not willing to dedicate the land themselves. Mr. Keeney suggested the Breithaupt’s would prefer to sell the land and allow the developer to make the dedication.
It was agreed that it was difficult to separate discussion about Items 7, 8 and Misc. 3. It was suggested that public testimony should be taken for 7 & 8 before taking action on any of the items.
Chairman Haase asked why there was no comment from the Fire Department in the original Staff Reports for the items concerned in Misc. 3, when it would seem that they had a serious concern. Staff said Fire & Medical did not typically provide comment on rezonings. Emergency access concerns were addressed during discussions about the Preliminary Plat.
It was verified that the City Commission had denied the annexation request for the subject property and this issue was not returned to the Planning Commission. It followed that Planning Commission approval on Items 7, 8 and/or Misc. 3 would have to be contingent upon future annexation, which could be initiated by the city or re-requested by the applicant at any time.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Burress to table Misc. 3 to hold the public hearing on Items 7 & 8, then return to Misc. 3 for deliberation and action.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
ITEM NO 7: A-1 TO RS5; 5.21 ACRES; SOUTHEAST OF LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION AND EAST OF E 920 ROAD (SLD)
Z-12-56-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 5.21 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home) District to RS5 (Single-Dwelling Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located southeast of Lake Estates Subdivision and east of E 920 Road. Chris Earl, Mark A. & Marsha G. Buhler, Yankee Tank Investors, and Alvamar, Inc., are the property owners of record. This was initiated by the Planning Commission at their December 15, 2004, meeting.
ITEM NO 8: A-1 TO RM-D; 5.21 ACRES; SOUTHEAST OF LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION AND EAST OF E 920 ROAD (SLD)
Z-10-51B-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 5.21 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home) District to RM-D (Multi-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located southeast of Lake Estates Subdivision and east of E 920 Road. Submitted by Peridian Group for Chris Earl, Mark A. & Marsha G. Buhler, Yankee Tank Investors, and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record. This item was tabled by the Planning Commission at their December 15, 2004, meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day clarified that Items 7 & 8 were new and different rezoning proposals for an identical piece of property. The Planning Commission tabled a portion of the original request for RM-D zoning (Item 8) and initiated rezoning (of the same area) to the proposed new RS5 zoning district provided by the anticipated new Development Code. She showed the location of the subject property in comparison with the land involved in Misc. 3.
It was pointed out that the Development Code had been unexpectedly delayed for at least 6 months, making the RS5 zoning initiated in Item 7 impractical to apply.
Staff pointed out that the Planning Commission was the applicant for Item 7, having initiated the request. Staff suggested the Planning Commission could withdraw the item, rather than denying the rezoning.
It was clarified that the applicant did not oppose use of the Lesser Change Table to revise the requested RM-D zoning to RS-2. This would require revised findings of fact and should be conditioned upon annexation and recording of a final plat.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, stood for questions on behalf of the applicant and referred the Commission to his testimony for Misc. 3.
PUBLIC HEARING
Price Banks, attorney-at-law, spoke on behalf of some area residents, saying city zoning districts could not be applied to land that was not within the city limits and the Commission did not have the statutory authority to act on the rezoning requests because the property was not annexed. He stated that the City Commission’s denial of the annexation request made any consideration of rezoning for this property a moot point.
Comm. Burress suggested an alternate theory that, as an advisory body, the Planning Commission had the legal ability to recommend what should be done with the property once it was annexed. Mr. Banks agreed the Commission had “unlimited ability to recommend”, but said this recommendation did not carry the weight of law and the City Commission could ignore it in the future. Comm. Burress asked if the recommendation could be held until annexation took place.
Francois Henriquez, 1436 E 920 Road, said the City Commission’s action made it clear the city did not plan to have further development in this area until there was an area plan.
Mr. Henriquez addressed the road issue, saying a collector street was shown to the west in Transportation 2025. He stated that E 920 Road was inadequate to serve as an alternate collector, having a sharp curve, steep grade and no curbing or guttering. He referenced a presentation on February 17th by KDOT, in which the state expressed concern about the amount of traffic coming in to the area bounded by 6th Street and the SLT. Considering these issues together, he said it was obvious the city did not have a “good game plan for what is going on here”, and that the Planning Commission should follow the City Commission’s direction.
It was established that Mr. Henriquez supported the concept of a road through the Breithaupt property as an alternative to E 920 Road acting as a collector. He felt this was a natural flow for area traffic and asked to make it clear that Lake Estates Drive was a local road, not a collector.
Staff responded to questioning that, in terms of engineering, E 920 Road could be improved to city collector standards, but cautioned the Commission that it would require additional study.
George Paley, 1448 E 920 Road, said he was not anti-development and recognized that development would occur on the subject property. However, he shared the concerns of others that E 920 Road would become a de facto collector street and hoped that, in light of area plan preparation, the Breithaupt’s would change their minds about dedicating the right-of-way needed for an appropriate collector street connection.
APPLICANT CLOSING
Mr. Keeney stated that E 920 Road was designated as a future collector road on the originally approved plat. Since that time, the collector designation was downgraded and the road layout redesigned with Transportation 2025 to better fit existing development. He said that E 920 Road met or came close to meeting all the standards for a collector road, although it was now designated as a local street.
Mr. Keeney spoke about the complications of meeting the expectations of 4 landowners who had differing ideas about when the road would/should go through.
Mr. Paley and Mr. Henriquez were asked to comment on the suggestion that land use was already decided for so much of the overall area that an area plan was not of great benefit.
Mr. Banks said this was the worst place in Lawrence for RM zoning because of bad access permitted without a plan. He said it appeared the applicant was proposing high-density residential for the entire area, when the road network was not suitable for high-density development.
Comm. Ermeling asked what use the area was suited for if not residential, keeping in mind the high price of the land. It was commented that land prices were influenced by the zoning of the subject property, the development of the surrounding property, and many other factors.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Keeney pointed out that much of the surrounding area was zoned commercially and the property owner(s) had paid commercial prices for their land. However, the proposal today was for low-density residential (not high-density), which would generate less traffic than commercial uses.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was established that an area plan would take up to a year to commence, but should not hinder the progress of existing approvals. The City Commission had issued moratoriums in the past, but these typically allowed projects in progress to continue.
It was discussed that, because there was no adopted size requirement for an area plan, the plan could be as large or as small as deemed appropriate. However, these parameters should be set with connectivity in mind and should extend further than a single subdivision. An area plan would study a wide range of topics (topography, soils, roads, infrastructure, public services, existing plats and easements, public and neighborhood concerns preferences) under the guidance of adopted land use documents.
It was verified that a service delivery plan could be done at the same time as an area plan.
The Commission discussed the implications of the City Commission’s denial of the annexation request. The denial of the annexation request was final, but another request could be submitted by the applicant or initiated by the city at any time. In the opinion of the Director of Legal Services on similar projects (annexation with rezonings), the Planning Commission had the ability to take action on the rezoning requests even though the property was not currently within the City limits.
The Commission returned to Misc. 3.
ACTION TAKEN
Misc. 3
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to confirm the Planning Commission’s February 17th reaffirmation of their January 26th action to approve Z-10-50-04 (3.6348 acres A to RS-1) & Z-10-51A-04 (5.0277 acres A to RS-1) and forward these items to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was confirmed that the City Commission initiated an area plan, but did not specifically tie the area plan to these applications. The Planning Commission had the option to make that connection if they chose.
Comm. Burress asked to state for the record a rationale for the reaffirmation. Suggestions included:
It was clarified that the motion on the floor was not meant to include any connection between completion of an area plan and the proposed rezonings.
Comm. Burress asked to separate the issue of closing E 920 Road.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to confirm the Planning Commission’s February 17th reaffirmation of their January 26th action to approve Z-10-50-04 (3.6348 acres A to RS-1) & Z-10-51A-04 (5.0277 acres A to RS-1) and forward these items to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
See later actions on other issues related to Misc. 3
ITEM 7
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to withdraw the request initiated by the Planning Commission because the delays in adopting the new Land Development Code meant RS5 zoning would not be available for implementation in the near future.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
ITEM 8
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress suggested the Planning Commission had a clear position on how they believed things should proceed and a clear action was needed to clarify that position.
The Commission discussed findings of fact to support a motion to approve rezoning to RS-2, based on the Lesser Change Table as proposed by the applicant. It was discussed that all of the findings provided in the Staff Report were applicable with the exception of language regarding suitability. The following additional finding was proposed:
The applicant has shown where RS-2 zoning would be suitable for the area.
It was established that no position on the proposed sensor gate could be tied to the rezoning.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to approve Z-10-51B-04, the rezoning of 5.21 acres from A-1 to RS-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the Lesser Change Table and the findings of fact as discussed. Approval was subject to the following conditions:
1. Annexation of the subject property prior to publication of the zoning ordinance; and
2. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously 9-0.
MISC. 3 – Related Items
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress referenced the City Commission’s direction to consider closing E 920 Road. He said the applicant’s proposal for a sensory activated gate was interesting, but he would normally oppose it because it did not address all the concerns. Emergencies that would require access through the barricade would not always involve typical emergency vehicles that would be able to operate the sensors to get through the gate. Also the gate concept went against the basic principle of connectivity.
Comm. Jennings said he would support the gate proposal only if its removal were tied to a specific action, such as annexation of the property to the north and street improvements to the road. Until the road was improved to city standards, he said the chip and seal surface of E 920 Road would not withstand construction traffic.
Comm. Ermeling asked if the gate could be conditioned to state that it would be removed if the area plan revealed it was no longer needed.
It was established that the applicant anticipated being responsible for maintenance of the sensor gate.
Comm. Burress suggested it was not necessary to take action. The record of their discussion met the City Commission’s direction to consider the issue. It was suggested that the obligation to consider an area plan was similarly met through reference to the evening’s discussions.
Chairman Haase called a 5-minute recess.
Meeting reconvened at 8:35 p.m.
ITEM NO. 6: AMENDMENT TO HORIZON 2020 – CHAPTER 7 (WBH)
CPA-2004-02: Amendment to Horizon 2020 to update Chapter 7 (Industrial and Employment-Related Land Use). This item was deferred from the February 2, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Hauschild introduced the item, a proposed amendment to HORIZON 2020 to update Chapter 7 – Industrial and Employment-Related Land Use. He gave background on the process leading to the update, which included input from various City Departments, the Chamber of Commerce and the ECO2 Committee.
Criteria were developed for identifying appropriate industrial sites and information was gathered about different types of industrial uses and opportunities Lawrence had lost because suitable industrial sites were not available.
An additional 1000 acres were identified, as well as a number of smaller sites deemed appropriate for office/business/research types of uses.
The chapter update was reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2004 and referred to the Comprehensive Plan Committee. Following review and revision, the CPC forwarded a recommended draft chapter, which was initiated as a text amendment in October 2004.
Mr. Hauschild outlined the primary changes in the updated chapter:
1. Formatting – based on direction to distinguish clearly between industrial land use and employment-related land use. Two sections identifying types of uses in each category, including how to identify appropriate locations
2. Language on locating potential industrial sites – general criteria for locating appropriate sites; proximity to floodplain and infrastructure, topography, parcel size and acreage, etc. New areas were identified for industrial use and mapped later in the chapter. Site-specific criteria were also developed for a more detailed look at appropriate locations (road design, zoning, existing development, timing of services, environmental conditions, etc.)
3. Mapping – one map identifies existing industrial areas within Lawrence and its UGA. A second map shows locations areas identified per the general criteria as appropriate for additional industrial sites. This map mirrored the recommendations of ECO2, but in a general sense because ECO2’s study is not complete. Also, in Staff’s opinion it was more appropriate to identify specific sites in a neighborhood or area plan.
4. Goals & Policies – added text to Goal 2 about location criteria and language about design standards to all Goals.
Staff recommended approval of the chapter as presented.
Comm. Burress asked for information about the potential site shown at Baldwin Junction. Mr. Hauschild said this site was identified using the general location criteria because it was located at the intersection of two state highways and had large tracts of land. This particular site was complicated by its location within the 3-mile of Baldwin City, but in Staff’s opinion it was important to identify the site for future investigation as a long-range possibility. Comm. Burress said the chapter should specifically state when an identified site was a long-range (25-50 year) vs. short-range (10-20 year) possibility.
Comm. Burress said this was the first time the city had done any planning beyond the 20-year growth horizon and he was concerned about the implications.
Comm. Burress referenced language about building new sites within the UGA. He pointed out the UGA was significant in size and the text was not clear that new sites should not be built in locations that were not close to annexation. Staff agreed this was the intent of the chapter. Comm. Burress suggested revising the language to tie new sites in the unincorporated areas to annexation potential, since all other factors could change. He said other paragraphs held similar vague language.
Comm. Eichhorn noted that the total amount of all the potential new industrial sites was about 2500 and asked if the county needed that much industrial land. He also pointed out that none of the new acreage was located near an interstate, although that was one of the primary reasons stated for lost industrial opportunities in the past. Mr. Hauschild replied that Staff and ECO2 struggled with finding sites along the interstate that met other location criteria. Many sites east along I-70 faced floodplain issues, while western properties had significant slopes. Ms. Finger pointed out two locations close to the corridor that were serviceable by utilities, one in North Lawrence and one at K-10 and US40.
Comm. Erickson asked for examples of industrial uses that did not require a level of service. Mr. Hauschild said rural water district uses, agricultural service providers and rock quarries were some examples.
Staff responded to questioning that access to public transit was listed in the chapter as a goal consideration but it was not a general criteria.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress referenced the multiple comments received in writing from the League of Women Voters, saying although no one was present to speak about the document, people had been reading it.
Comm. Eichhorn asked if the document was being considered tonight for approval as the new industrial chapter. If this was so, he wanted to state for the record that the document had a “glaring misrepresentation of having the transit network for interstate access.”
Chairman Haase stated his agreement that the document was not ready for adoption. He was concerned that the chapter did not synchronize with other documents, such as the Southeast Area Plan or the ECO2 study, when both would soon be complete. He suggested sending the document back to subcommittee to think about how this information interacted with those other sources. Chairman Haase was also concerned about eth lack of scientific data provided in this chapter in comparison with other chapters. He said the chapter should get specific about when and where industrial development would take place and how that fit into projected need.
Comm. Ermeling felt the document should be tied closely to the Transportation Master Plan, saying this was an important element that should be under consideration now.
Comm. Burress asked for clarification of the term “interstate access”. How far a traveling distance did this involve and on what kind of road? Mr. Hauschild said the term generally implied a distance of one mile or less to the access road. The Commission or committee could fine-tune that definition as seen fit.
Chairman Haase said it did not appear that the chapter could be refined to an adoptable state tonight. He suggested returning the document to subcommittee and encouraged individuals to submit additional comments in writing.
Other comments given at the meeting included:
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to return the draft Industrial & Employment Related chapter to the Comprehensive Plans Committee with direction to review the chapter in light of tonight’s discussion and to incorporate the information from ECO2’s study of industrial land uses and other public/commission comments.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
ITEM NO 9: A-1 TO RS-1; ONE ACRE; 810 N. MINNESOTA (SMS)
Z-01-13-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately one acre from A-1 (Suburban Residential) District to RS-1 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at 810 N. Minnesota (E 1338 Road). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Wanda Shoemaker, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Stogsdill introduced the item, a request to rezone the subject property to RS-1, making it eligible to receive city services that were readily available for extension from the east.
Staff explained the annexation did not come before the Planning Commission because it involved less than 10 acres. The property was annexed and platted, so Staff did not recommend a condition tying the rezoning to recording of a plat. Annexation of the overall area was anticipated in the near future.
The applicant proposed splitting the lot into two parcels, both well over the minimum lot size for the requested RS-1 zoning.
Staff recommended approval of the request with no conditions.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
John Selk spoke on behalf of the applicant, stating agreement with Staff’s recommendation.
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. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the rezoning of approximately one acre from A to RS-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:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
ITEM NO. 10A: A TO RS-2; 4.608 ACRES; SOUTH AND EAST OF STONERIDGE DRIVE (EXTENDED)
Z-01-01-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 4.608 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District. The property is generally described as being located south and east of Stoneridge Drive (extended). Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for MS Construction, Inc., property owner of record.
ITEM NO. 10B: A TO RO-1A; 3.505 ACRES; SOUTH AND EAST OF STONERIDGE DRIVE (EXTENDED) (SLD)
Z-01-02-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 3.505 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RO-1A (Residence-Office) District. The property is generally described as being located south and east of Stoneridge Drive (extended). Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for MS Construction, Inc., property owner of record.
ITEM NO. 10C: A TO RM-1; 8.323 ACRES; SOUTH AND EAST OF STONERIDGE DRIVE (EXTENDED) (SLD)
Z-01-03-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 8.323 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located south and east of Stoneridge Drive (extended). Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for MS Construction, Inc., property owner of record.
Items 10A – 10C were deferred prior to the meeting.
ITEM NO 11A: ANNEXATION OF 54 ACRES; NORTHWEST OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND K-10 HIGHWAY (NORTH OF JUDY’S JUNCTION) (SLD)
A-01-01-05: Annexation request for approximately 54 acres, located northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction). Submitted by Bob Voth for Windover Community at Lawrence, LLC, property owners of record.
RESUME PUBLIC HEARING:
ITEM NO 11B: A TO RS-2; 9.12 ACRES; NORTHWEST OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND K-10 HIGHWAY (NORTH OF JUDY’S JUNCTION) (SLD)
Z-01-05-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 9.12 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction). Submitted by Bob Voth for Windover Community at Lawrence, LLC, property owners of record.
ITEM NO 11C: A TO RM-2; 40 ACRES; NORTHWEST OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND K-10 HIGHWAY (NORTH OF JUDY’S JUNCTION) (SLD)
Z-01-06-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 40 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction). Submitted by Bob Voth for Windover Community at Lawrence, LLC, property owners of record.
ITEM NO 11D: A TO RM-D; 4.6 ACRES; NORTHWEST OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND K-10 HIGHWAY (NORTH OF JUDY’S JUNCTION) (SLD)
Z-01-07-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 4.6 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RM-D (Duplex Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction). Submitted by Bob Voth for Windover Community at Lawrence, LLC, property owners of record.
Items 11A – 11D were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day relayed the applicant’s request for direction regarding how much time he would be allotted for his presentation.
Ms. Day hoped to address in her presentation a comment made earlier in the evening that this project was associated to a rezoning on the other side of Highway K-10.
Staff showed where the subject property was located on the west side of Highway K-10, showing also the Corps property and land recently acquired by USD 497. This overall area has only recently been considered in terms of development. She explained that access was provided along the frontage road parallel to Highway K-10, stopping short north of the adjacent commercial property.
Ms. Day indicated the proximity of existing utilities, noting that both water and sewer lines would need to be extended to the subject property. She also showed the watershed in which the subject property was located.
Staff then clarified that the applicant’s intent for the RM-2 zoning portion of the request was to provide small-lot, modular residential units at an economical cost. The intent was not for conventional multi-family development of higher density, so it was not similar in to the proposal east of Highway K-10. Lots with a more conventional size and single-family housing type were proposed for the northern section of this project.
It was noted that the proposal was in the UGA, but in Service Area 3, where there was not a lot of information about service provision or land uses.
The applicant provided Staff with a concept plan to help in understanding the proposed mix of densities and housing types. The concept plan was not a formal submittal and was not evaluated as such.
Ms. Day noted the surrounding uses, which were mainly agricultural with a few rural residences scattered throughout. The subject area also abutted the Corps of Engineers’ lake property.
Staff had investigated water source issues in response to Study Session questions, but had been unable to reach the City’s Stormwater Engineer for comment about the ultimate flood level of Clinton Lake or the potential impact of this development on the downstream watershed. Comments in the Staff Report about the stormwater and watersheds reflected previous City Staff discussions about water runoff and quality issues.
The Commission asked Staff to address the possibility of achieving this project as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Ms. Day said this concept was discussed, but not at any level of detail. Staff’s review focused more on how the proposal related to the Comprehensive Plan, finding a challenge in balancing the competing priorities of discouraging leapfrog development and encouraging affordable housing.
Staff’s recommendation to the applicant two years ago had been to initiate with the Commission discussions about the competing value statements in the Comprehensive Plan before moving ahead with project. Early work on the new Development Code had begun at that time and it was suggested that the new code would provide a more suitable zoning district for this kind of development. The applicant had chosen to proceed with a conventional zoning request based on the existing zoning regulations.
Staff was not prepared to state at this time which of the proposed new zoning districts would be most suitable for this project.
Staff recommended denial of the request, finding the proposal engaging interesting but premature. Ms. Day was asked to summarize the reasons for this recommendation. She cited the following:
Staff was asked to explain why there was concern about leapfrog development with this project, when a different development (Final Plat) was approved previously across the SLT. Ms. Day responded that this request involved an annexation request, which required the extension of City services. In Staff’s opinion, the City was not yet ready to extend services to this section of Service Area 3. Comm. Krebs noted that Staff was aware of the steps needed to pave the way for extension of services. She asked if it would be appropriate to defer the requests and direct Staff to begin work on these necessary elements. Ms. Day said that was an option and had been done with the Farmland NE development (Re: Southeast Area Plan). However, this proposal would require long-range planning activities that could not begin until at least 2006, based on the existing workload of the City’s long-range and area planning staff.
It was clarified that this was the first development request received for Service Area 3.
Staff was asked to compare this development with Red Tail Ridge. Ms. Day said Red Tail Ridge was a rural development in the UGA and involved zoning and platting requests but not annexation or extension of City services. This development would require urban services. Staff did not have information about the estimated cost of extending the necessary services to this property.
Staff responded to questioning that the county commercial area to the southeast (Judy’s Junction) was expected to remain a commercial area.
It was discussed that the needed area plan would logically be bounded by the lake to the south and 15th Street (N1500 Road extended) to the north. East-west boundaries should be based on the watershed and would likely result in a narrow (linear) plan area.
The applicant was allowed 20 minutes for their presentation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mark White, urban planner and attorney, spoke representing Wyndover Communities at Lawrence. He introduced the technical team present to speak on behalf of the proposal
Mr. White said there was a documented need for affordable housing, supported by stated city policy, and this project answered that need.
Regarding the term “affordability”, Mr. White provided information on the price point of the proposed units in comparison with HUD housing cost requirements and average Lawrence housing prices. The project hoped to deliver housing in the range of $172,000.
Bob Voth, Chairman of Wyndover Communities, explained the property was purchased in 1988 for immediate development. For various reasons, the development was both delayed and modified to the proposed use as affordable housing and a team was put together to design the project.
Mr. Voth said similar projects were being approved near Wichita in a short amount of time, proving what could be done if the community was truly dedicated to providing affordable housing.
Mr. Voth commented on the frequent policy statement that the City supported the concept of affordable housing, but said it seemed that very little was ever done to implement that policy.
Mr. Voth explained that, because the land was purchased in 1988, it was still possible to develop the area with affordable housing. However, the window of opportunity was brief, and rising appraised values would soon make this use impossible. Mr. Voth said the developer planned to take no land profit, only the single profit from the house sale to emphasize the affordability concept.
Robert Whitman, Gould Evans Associates, gave an overview of the process for developing the plan as presented today. Meetings with area residents and property owners were held to gather input on the proposal. Proposed housing design and architectural details were based on preferences expressed at these meetings, taking into account site constraints and the affordability issue.
Mr. Whitman pointed out the eastern landscape easement along Highway K-10, intended to provide a buffer and increase open space. A system of interior trails was also proposed to provide residents with access to greenspace and to the state park.
Mr. Whitman described how varying housing types would be used to internalize density transitions and minimize the impact of this development on the surrounding area. He said the overall density of the entire project was about 4.62 units per acre.
Charlie Steinbacher, EBH Engineers, said his firm joined the development team in 2004, beginning with updating utility studies. Based on the new information, the cost of extending the water lines would be about $175,000-$200,000.
Sanitary sewer extension would be more challenging. The Sewer Master Plan divided the area into two drainage basins, with a lift station proposed adjacent to the Corps property in the next 15 years.
Mr. Steinbacher proposed providing a smaller lift station for the development until the city’s lift station was built. He described other elements for providing adequate capacity and pressure for the development.
Mr. White summarized reasons for supporting the proposal:
Mr. White outlined reasons the applicant did not feel an area plan was needed here:
Mr. White responded to questions from the Commission:
Comm. Burress stated his appreciation for the supporting data defining the applicant’s use of the term “affordable housing”.
PUBLIC HEARING – rezoning requests only
No member of the public spoke on this item.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments for the applicant or staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSION
Comm. Krebs said the Commission “dreamed” of projects like this and she hoped the concerns described could be dealt with to allow this project to proceed.
Comm. Jennings noted that the project provided no transition to the commercial development to the south. Expansion of the commercial uses would be hampered by requiring 100% of a transition to occur on the relatively small commercial property.
Staff responded to several questions:
The Commission discussed various issues:
Comm. Burress said the premature nature of the project was the only way it could work, because land values were still low enough to make affordable housing a viable use for the property. He asked if there was a way to complete the process that Staff could support. He also asked if it would be possible to do the area plan in 6 months. Comm. Ermeling pointed out this was contrary to the Commission’s usual methods. She expressed concern at being forced to make planning decisions without the normal full review. Comm. Burress responded that the City’s planning went too slowly because there was not enough funding behind it.
Craig White responded to questioning that the similar projects he referred to earlier were completed in Hesston and Hillsborough, Kansas.
Comm. Lawson said the concept was supportable, but it was atypical to see several Planning Commissioners eager to move ahead rapidly. He was not comfortable sacrificing a prudent planning approach, going against clear direction from the City Commission that area plans were required for new growth and development. Comm. Krebs said this was the kind of project the Commission “dreamed” of getting, but she could not support it without an area plan. Nor did she advocate expediting the area planning process.
Comm. Burress asked what was wrong with expediting the process. Ms. Finger cautioned that there was no guarantee an area plan would have results favorable to the applicant’s development or timing. Mr. Voth responded to questioning that paying for the study without knowing the results would be a prudent wager if the cost were $100,000 or less, but he would prefer to have some agreements in place beforehand.
It was noted that an attempt was made to present the issue to the City Commission. The applicant was told to go through the regular planning channels.
There was discussion about directing Staff to bring forward a proposal in 1-2 months for financing the area plan. It was suggested that there were too many unknowns at the outset of an area plan to expect Staff to bring a proposal in 1-2 months.
Vice-Chair Riordan stated that the provision of affordable housing was a “trump card”, but did it trump all the policies that were in conflict with this proposal?
The Commission discussed deferring the rezonings, but moving the annexation forward for the City Commission to consider the implications of “jumping” the City limits across Highway K-10.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 11A
Motioned by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Riordan to forward the annexation request to the City Commission with the understanding that the Planning Commission viewed the property and the request as having unique characteristics that might warrant special consideration.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was verified that the wording “special consideration” was deliberate, and that the motion was not intended to include a recommendation regarding the annexation.
Several Commissioners indicated their intended vote:
Chairman Haase said he did not take issue with the motion as stated, noting that the record would reflect multiple points of view.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Item 11A
Motion on the floor was to forward the annexation request to the City Commission with the understanding that the Planning Commission viewed the property and the request as having unique characteristics that might warrant special consideration.
Motion carried 6-3, with Comm.’s Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Comm.’s Burress, Eichhorn and Jennings voted in opposition.
Items 11B – 11D
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Lawson to table the items:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
MISCELLANEOUS
Ms. Finger referenced the special meeting scheduled for March 9, 2005. Two items were originally on the agenda for the meeting, the new Development Code and the Cooperative Agreement between the City and Kansas University. She explained that one of the items, the Development Code, had been delayed by the City Commission for at least 6 months. It was suggested that holding the special meeting for a single item was not a prudent use of time. It was also recommended that the Commission add the City/KU Agreement to their regular March Agenda.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to cancel the March 9th meeting and place the remaining topic, the City/KU Agreement on the regular March Planning Commission agenda.
Motion carried 8-0-1, with Comm. Burress absent during the vote.
ADJOURN – 11:15 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.