April 2005
Meeting Minutes
_______________________________________________________________________
April 25, 2005 – Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners present: Angino, Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Day, Ahrens, Guntert, Patterson, Pool and Ellis
_______________________________________________________________________
Ms. Finger asked to add a presentation from the County Administrator, Craig Weinaug, to the Communications section of the agenda.
Motioned by Angino, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the minutes of the March 14 & 16 2005 meetings as presented.
Motion carried unanimously 10-0.
CPC: The Committee met twice. Received report on progress of Parks & Recreation ad hoc Committee.
TAC: Met to discuss TIP amendment on tonight’s agenda. Also discussed how to get City policy on boulevards and turnabouts. It was established that Staff would be providing a written proposal at the Wednesday meeting.
P & R ad hoc: The Committee expressed appreciation for Mr. Hauschild’s assistance in finalizing the draft HORIZON 2020 chapter provided in the packets.
RPC: The Rural Development chapter is awaiting input from Eudora and Lecompton. Haase said he had modified the information into a new draft (#8) that he would present to the RPC and public in the near future. He anticipated presenting the final version to the full Commission in May for consideration in June.
PCMM: The Commission continued their discussion of Subdivision Regulations, focusing on neighborhood design, walkability and New Urbanism standards. There was general agreement to pursue development of language on connectivity.
Item 2 – Final Development Plan for Hanscom-Tappan II PRD
· Letter from Alan Belot on behalf of applicant, requesting waiver of condition 5
· Staff memo responding to above request
Item 3 – Preliminary Plat for Lake Estates at Alvamar
· Letter from League of Women Voters
Item 4 – Final Plat for Lake View Addition No.2
· Letter from Glen Breithaupt representing Breithaupt family
Item 6 – Final Plat for Long John Silvers/A&W Restaurant
· Letter from Bill Shulties regarding adequate stormwater control and proper grease control & disposal
Item 10B – Final Development Plan for Crown Chevrolet/Toyota AND
Item 10C – Final Plat for Wal-Mart Addition No. 3
· Letter from League of Women Voters
Item 11 – Use Permitted upon Review for Brandon Woods Retirement Center
· Letters of support from:
Harold & Melissa Rosen
Clara Johnson
Betty Laird
Barbara Abercrombie
Angela Holiday
Todd Seymore
Gene & Loris Banker
Martha Nichols
Dale Allen
Ray Christian
Bea Christian
Byron Gilmore
Ann Warren
Arno Knapper
Marianna Besch
Item 18 – Rezoning 6 acres A to A-1
· Letter from League of Women Voters regarding contguity
Item 19B – Rezoning for Bauer Farms AND
Item 19C – Preliminary Development Plan for Bauer Farms
· Letter from League of Women Voters
General
· Memo from Staff about HORIZON 2020 amendment for Transportation and Historic Resources
· Memo from Staff about HORIZON 2020 amendment dealing with Parks & Recreation
· Memo from Staff following up Next Steps workshop in February
County Administrator Craig Weinaug was present to speak about the County Commission’s meeting on March 18th regarding rural development. Many parties agreed that more discussion was warranted in light of several recent requests to rescind minimum maintenance designations for various sections of county road. Re-designation to full maintenance status made these areas available for division and development using the 5-acre exemption.
Mr. Weinaug said that, for the first time in his tenure, a majority of the County Commission indicated their agreement that the 5-acre exemption was no longer working and they were interested in looking at other options for rural development.
The County Commission had looked at the draft Rural Development Chapter and had returned a significant number of comments about what they did not like about the draft. Mr. Weinaug said he tried to emphasize to the County Commission that it was no longer adequate to point to elements they did not care for. It was time for the County Commission to provide input about what they did want to see in the rural development regulations.
At Mr. Weinaug’s suggestion, the Planning Director met with the County Commission to ‘brainstorm’ about alternatives to the 5-acre exemption. Mr. Weinaug said the ‘right option’ was the one that could get a majority of votes at the City and County Commissions.
Haase commented as a member of the Rural Development Committee (RPC) that it was his opinion that the RPC was done with their part of the process and had worked hard to find a balance that the City and County Commissions could agree on. He said it was time for the governing bodies to take up the issue and look for common ground.
Mr. Weinaug referenced the first draft of the rural development chapter, which was met with many negative comments by the County Commission. He suggested that this reaction would have been given to the first offered alternative to the 5-acre exemption, “no matter what it was.” Now that the first proposal had been examined it was time for compromises on all sides. Mr. Weinaug said it was important not to return to the position where “lines are drawn and won’t change, so nothing happens.”
Mr. Weinaug responded to questioning that none of the alternatives discussed at the County Commission’s meeting on the 18th were concrete, but the County Commission was looking at developing a regulation instead of a policy document.
Mr. Weinaug said he’d spoken with County Zoning Administrator Keith Dabney about areas of possible common ground, such as access, road frontage and ghost platting. There was also discussion about using part of the existing draft Subdivision Regulations’ 20-acre exception (not exemption) to create a design template for various acreages outside the UGA. Removing the requirement for A-1 zoning inside the UGA was discussed as well.
Mr. Weinaug said the governing bodies would need to address annexation and water availability, especially south of the Wakarusa River.
Mr. Weinaug said the County agreed that whatever regulations were chosen should not apply to Service Areas 1 & 2. These areas should be regulated through an annexation policy.
Lawson commented that 5-acre exemptions were occurring at “lightning speed” and if regulations were not adopted soon they would be a moot point, at least on hard surface roads.
Angino anticipated a major issue would be deciding on the appropriate acreage to replace the 5-acre exemption. Mr. Weinaug said the two County Commissioners who appeared to be ready for a change did not appear to have a set acreage in mind and suggested it would be better to leave the issue open for discussion.
EX PARTE DISCLOSURE/INDICATION OF ABSTENSIONS/CONSIDERARION OF DEFERRAL REQUESTS
CONSENT AGENDA
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 1: FINAL PLAT FOR HANSCOM-TAPPAN ADDITION, 2ND PLAT, SOUTH OF 15TH STREET AND WEST OF HASKELL AVENUE (SLD)
PF-01-02-05: Final Plat for Hanscom-Tappan Addition, 2nd Plat, a Replat of Tract B, Block One, and Lot 14, Tract Two, Hanscom-Tappan Addition, and a Final Plat of an adjacent tract. This proposed 13-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 2.006 acres. The property is generally described as being located south of 15th Street and west of Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Parnell Investors L.L.C., property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Angino, seconded by Krebs to approve the Final Plat for Hansom-Tappan Addition, 2nd Plat 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 amend the Mayor’s name to Dennis Highberger;
2. Provision of a revised Final Plat to correct the access restriction to state “No access shall be provided onto Haskell Avenue for Lot 1, Block 2.”
3. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for street, sidewalk and intersection improvements for 15th Street and Haskell Avenue;
4. Submission of public improvement plans for all public improvements per approval of the Public Works Department including:
a. Water lines;
b. Sanitary sewers;
c. Streets, curb & gutter profiles including driveway approaches,
d. Sidewalks; and
e. Storm drainage system;
5. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.
6. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
7. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Copy of paid property tax receipt;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
c. Provision of a master street tree plan;
d. Provision of street sign fees.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 2: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HANSCOM-TAPPAN II PRD, SOUTH OF 15TH STREET AND WEST OF HASKELL AVENUE (SLD)
FDP-01-02-05: Final Development Plan for Hanscom-Tappan II PRD. This proposed single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 1.93 acres. The property is described as being located at 1535 Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Allen Belot for Parnell Investors, LLC, property owner of record.
This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda to discuss the applicant’s request to remove condition 5 and allow location of the air conditioning units in the side yard for the new homes in Phase 2.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Allen Belot spoke on behalf of the applicant, explaining condition 5 created a hardship on applicant because placing the AC units in the rear yard would make the units inefficient. He said the applicant’s request for side yard placement was reasonable because the side yard setbacks were equal to those for any other single-family development, even if the side yards themselves were smaller.
Mr. Belot was asked how much efficiency would be lost with the rear yard placement recommended by Staff. He replied that for optimum performance the freon line should be no longer than 25’. Rear yard placement would result in lines much longer than 25’. Eichhorn said that, in his experience, the longer lines would not result in an appreciable loss of efficiency. Mr. Belot said rear placement would result in units that ran all the time, since the temperature would never get low enough to allow the thermostat to turn off.
The Commission asked if the applicant would be willing to provide additional side yard landscaping in exchange for and to minimize side yard placement. It was noted that the concern with side yard placement was noise, not the visual impact. Landscaping (shrubbery) would not make a significant reduction to the noise level of the units.
Mr. Belot asked the Commission to consider the fact that this recommendation went “beyond what 90% of homes [in Lawrence] are required to do.” He said that this would not be an issue if the subject area were zoned RS-2, and the setbacks in this development were equal to those in RS-2 zoning.
Mr. Belot said AC units were a part of life, but a significant amount of planning had gone into this project to reduce noise conflict between living spaces. He suggested that trying to control this element without knowing if the additional requirements would be effective was an unfair burden on this project.
Angino said placing additional conditions on the plan like the ones being discussed was contrary to the City’s stated intent to encourage infill development. He expressed concern that developers would stop making infill requests because it was too hard to get through the process.
Staff was asked to speak about their recommendation regarding the AC unit placement. Ms. Day said this condition was supplied in response to Staff-level discussion about the reduced side yard setbacks that had been associated with this development from the beginning. The project had evolved since those initial talks and the number of lots had reduced, resulting in additional open space. However, the lots were still generally smaller than those in typical residential developments. It was noted that the recommendation had been in place through previous reviews and the applicant had expressed no opposition until the construction stage.
Ms. Day responded to questioning that Staff would be open to the possibility of side yard placement with landscape screening. Lawson said he was unsure that he could support seeking a quid pro quo about mandating screening. He did not see the need for screening and it was up to the property buyer to maintain the landscaping. Jennings added that maintaining the landscaping added to the buyer’s cost, as did the extra AC line and longer unit run time.
Riordan said he understood Staff’s concerns about noise pollution, but he felt that, in this case, the issue of electric consumption was more important. He also commented that the modern AC units were small and quiet, and he did not think vegetative screening would be very effective in reducing noise. Burress replied that vegetative screening would be effective in absorbing sound – it was a matter of physics.
Motioned by Krebs to approve the Final development Plan for Hansom-Tappan II PRD, revising the conditions presented by Staff to remove the requirement for rear yard placement of the AC units and adding a condition requiring landscape screening placed in front of the units in the side yards.
It was clarified that the condition regarding rear yard placement was not in the Staff Report but was supplied in an additional memo from Staff because a note to that effect was already in place on the face of the plan. An action similar to the motion on the floor was needed to allow removal of this note.
It was established for the record that the motion on the floor was intended to apply to all the lots in the development – phases 1 & 2.
Burress seconded the motion on the floor.
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Angino to amend the motion on the floor to strike the added condition for landscape screening.
Lawson explained his proposed amendment was in response to concerns for the eventual homeowner. He said it was not appropriate for the Commission to dictate what kind of landscaping a private property owner must maintain on his own property. Burress said that was a general condition that could apply to any landscaping, and asked if the Commission should consider modifying the landscaping section of the development code. He added that fencing and other elements were left to the homeowner for maintenance. Lawson said he had a proposal prepared when it was time for a discussion of the development code.
Angino said [projects like this] were the closest thing Lawrence had to lower cost housing and he did not want to take part in any action that so strongly contradicted the principles of low cost housing and energy efficiency.
Haase noted that the applicant had agreed to the landscaping alternative. It was noted that maintenance of landscaping was legally enforceable, but this was sometimes difficult on single-family lots.
Krebs suggested that rejecting the condition for rear yard placement recognized the city’s commitment to the ideas of lower homeowner costs and energy efficiency.
Krebs called the question on the amendment with no objection.
Motion on the floor was to amend the original motion to strike the condition for landscape screening in front of the side yard AC units.
Motion failed, 4-6, with Angino, Eichhorn, Jennings and Lawson in favor. Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs and Riordan voted in opposition.
Lawson called the question on the original motion with no objection
Motion on the floor was to approve the Final Development Plan for Hanscom-Tappan II PRD, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following revised conditions:
1. Provision of a note that states, “Public improvement plans for the sidewalks, sanitary sewers, streets, storm drainage system and waterlines must be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. These improvements must be constructed and complete prior to issuance of building permits;”
2. Provision of a note that states, “Building permits will not be issued until the required public improvements are complete, final inspected and accepted by the Public Works Department;”
3. Removal of the note requiring placement of the air conditioning units in the rear of the lots in Phases 1 & 2;
4. Landscape screening must be placed in front of air conditioning units placed in the side yards of lots in Phases 1 & 2; and
5. Execution of a site plan performance agreement
Motion carried 8-2, with Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Angino and Jennings voted in opposition.
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 4: FINAL PLAT FOR LAKE VIEW ADDITION NO. 2, A REPLAT OF LAKE VIEW ADDITION; NORTH OF CLINTON PARKWAY & EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (SLD)
PF-02-03-05: Final Plat for Lake View Addition Number 2, a Replat of Lake View Addition. This proposed multi-family residential and commercial subdivision contains approximately 29.7261 acres and is located north of Clinton Parkway and east of K-10 Highway (SLT). Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Timber Villas Development, LLC, Central National Bank, Bristol Partners XVII, LLC, and Garber Enterprises, Inc., property owners of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Angino, seconded by Krebs to approve the Final Plat for Lake View Addition No. 2 and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised Final Plat to amend the Mayor’s name to Dennis Highberger;
2. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include a 10’ utility easement located along the gas line easement of Lot 3, Block 2;
3. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for street, sidewalk and intersection improvements for Lake Pointe Drive;
4. Submission of public improvement plans per approval of the Public Works Department prior to recording of the Final Plat with the Register of Deeds Office;
5. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.
6. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
7. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Copy of paid property tax receipt;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
c. Provision of a master street tree plan.
d. Provision of street sign fees.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 5: FINAL PLAT FOR FALL CREEK FARMS 11TH PLAT; WEST OF KASOLD DRIVE AND SOUTH OF PETERSON ROAD (LAP)
PF-03-04-05: Final Plat for Fall Creek Farms 11th Plat. This proposed one-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 1.174 acres and is located west of Kasold Drive and south of Peterson Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Sojac Land Company, L.C., property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Angino, seconded by Krebs to approve the Final Plat for Fall Creek Farms 11th Plat and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. A current copy of a paid property tax receipt.
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
c. A completed Master Street Tree Plan in accordance with Section 21-708a.3.
d. A filed copy of the dedication of the drainage easement to be located outside of lot one.
2. A Temporary Utility Agreement.
3. Revision of the final plat to include the following:
a. Minimum elevation for building opening(s) for the pending structure(s).
b. The revision of the Mayor’s name to Dennis Highberger.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 6: FINAL PLAT FOR LONG JOHN SILVER’S/A & W RESTAURANT; 1503 W. 23RD STREET (SLD)
PF-03-06-05: Final Plat for Long John Silver’s/A & W Restaurant. This proposed commercial one-lot subdivision contains approximately 1.15 acre and is located at 1503 W. 23rd Street. Submitted by McCluggage Van Sickle & Perry for Yum! Brands, Inc. – Long John Silver’s Corporation, property owner of record.
Burress explained he had pulled this item from the Consent Agenda to make sure the record was clear that the intent was not to grant additional access points to 23rd Street. If cross access were achieved, the existing center access would be closed.
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the Final Plat for Long John Silvers/A&W Restaurant 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 include the following changes:
a. Location of 25’ cross access easement across the front of the property consistent with the location to be shown on the site plan for the same property, per staff approval prior to consideration of the Final Plat by the City Commission;
b. Show signature block for County Surveyor;
c. Amend name of Mayor to Dennis Highberger; and
d. Remove building setback lines from face of drawing;
2. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include the following easements including labels per section 21-609 as follows:
a. Of existing 10 ’ rear easement along south property line;
b. Of existing 15’ easement abutting south property line off-site;
c. Of new 10’ side utility easement along west property line;
d. Of new 5’ side utility easements along east property line; and
e. Of existing 5’ utility easement abutting east property line off-site;
3. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for street, sidewalk and intersection improvements for 23rd Street;
4. Submission of public improvement plans for all public improvements per approval of the Public Works Department;
5. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and
6. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Copy of paid property tax receipt;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Provision of a master street tree plan.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
The Commission dealt with Item 10 at this point.
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 7: FINAL PLAT FOR OAKLEY ADDITION NO. 3, A REPLAT OF OAKLEY ADDITION NO. 1, LOT 25, BLOCK 1, IN OAKLEY ADDITION NO. 2, AND AN UNPLATTED TRACT OF LAND; WEST OF FOLKS ROAD AND SOUTH OF W. 6TH STREET (PGP)
PF-03-07-05: Final Plat for Oakley Addition No. 3, a replat of Oakley Addition No. 1, Lot 25, Block 1 in Oakley Addition No. 2, and an unplatted tract of land. This proposed office and planned residential development contains approximately 9.614 acres and is located west of Folks Road and south of W. 6th Street. Submitted by Peridian Group for Consolidated Properties, Inc., and IMG Holdings, L.L.C., property owners of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Angino, seconded by Krebs to approve the Final Plat of Oakley Addition No. 3 and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing.
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
c. Traffic sign cost will need to be paid prior to recordation of the final plat.
d. Completion of a Master Street Tree Plan.
2. Submittal of public improvement plans to the City Public Works Department prior to filing of the final plat.
3. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement.
4. Pinning of the lots per Section 21-302.2.
5. Provision of a revised Final Plat amending the Mayor’s name to Dennis Highberger.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 8A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 202 N. 5TH STREET; NORTH OF WALNUT STREET AND EAST OF FIFTH STREET (LAP)
PP-03-05-05: Preliminary Plat for 202 N. 5th Street. This proposed three-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 0.689 acre and is located north of Walnut Street and east of Fifth street. Submitted by Peridian Group for Theresa and Robert Wagner, property owners of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Angino, seconded by Krebs to approve the Preliminary Plat for 202 N. 5th Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. The following note should be included on the preliminary plat: “As the property is located within the 1000 foot levee critical zone, a permit from the Corps of Engineers is required prior to any digging or excavating.”
2. Provision of the following modification to the preliminary plat:
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 8B: FINAL PLAT FOR 202 N. 5TH STREET; NORTH OF WALNUT STREET AND EAST OF FIFTH STREET (LAP)
PF-03-08-05: Final Plat for 202 N. 5th Street. This proposed three-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 0.689 acre and is located north of Walnut Street and east of Fifth street. Submitted by Peridian Group for Theresa and Robert Wagner, property owners of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Angino, seconded by Krebs to approve the Final Plat for 202 N. 5th Street and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of a paid property tax receipt.
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
c. A completed Master Street Tree Plan in accordance with Section 21-708a.3.
d. A completed Agreement Not to Protest a Benefit District for Walnut and 5th Streets.
2. Provision of the following modifications to the final plat:
a. Provide outer, interior, and center lines for Walnut and 5th Streets.
b. Removal of the setback lines.
c. The following note should be included on the final plat: “As the property is located within the 1000-foot levee critical zone, a permit from the Corps of Engineers is required prior to any digging or excavating.
d. The revision of the Mayor’s name to Dennis Highberger.
3. A Temporary Utility Agreement.
4. Submittal of public improvement plans for sidewalks and driveway culverts per approval of the Public Works Department.
5. A lot pinning certificate in accordance with Section 21-302.2.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 9: FINAL PLAT FOR CARPENTER ADDITION NO. 3; 1050 EAST 24TH STREET (PGP)
PF-03-09-05: Final Plat for Carpenter Addition No. 3, a replat of Lot 3, Carpenter Addition No. 2. This proposed three lot duplex-residential subdivision contains approximately 0.858 acre and is located at 1050 East 24th Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Larry H. Midyett and Sue A. Midyett, property owners of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Angino, seconded by Krebs to approve the Final Plat for Carpenter Additional No.3 and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the Final Plat for filing.
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
c. Provision of a completed Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708a.
2. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement.
3. Pinning of Lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2.
4. Provision of a revised Final Plat amending the Mayor’s name to Dennis Highberger.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
REGULAR AGENDA
Swearing in of witnesses
ITEM NO. 3: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LAKE ESTATES AT ALVAMAR; BETWEEN E 920 ROAD AND LAKE ALVAMAR (SLD)
PP-10-26-04: Revised Preliminary Plat for Lake Estates at Alvamar. This proposed 35-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 12.597 acres. The property is generally described as being located southeast of Lake Estates Subdivision, between E 920 Road and Lake Alvamar. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc. for Lake Estates at Alvamar, LLC, applicant, and Chris Earl, Mark A. & Marsha G. Buhler, Yankee Tank Investors, and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record.
Ms. Day introduced the item, a Preliminary Plat for a single-family residential subdivision. The City Commission had approved an annexation and rezonings for the project, subject to approval of plat. The Preliminary Plat had been redesigned to respond to neighborhood concerns, resulting in a single entry point to the subdivision and a cul-de-sac that would require a variance for length.
Ms. Day showed where right-of-way was designated for half a future connection. This was dedicated in anticipation of acquiring the other half upon redevelopment of the property to the west. Until this occurred, the cul-de-sac was proposed as a short-term solution to the concerns of area residents.
It was verified that there was no guarantee that the other half of the right-of-way would be attained, but 22nd Street was projected in the Transportation Plan as a future collector. The service delivery plan initiated for this overall area would address timing of these improvements.
Staff was asked if the City Commission was, in essence, supporting a subdivision design with less connectivity. Ms. Day said the City Commission was responding to the concerns expressed by several area residents that E 920 Road would become a de facto collector if the original subdivision design were approved. The current design also addressed concerns about land use transitions by eliminating the originally proposed multi-family section. Staff noted that the new plat retained the pedestrian connections the Planning Commission had asked for in previous considerations.
Riordan stated that the development faced a hardship of opposing political and regulatory considerations. He suggested this created a hardship that was not due to the action of the applicant and asked if denying the variance would constitute a taking, since the property could then not be developed. Riordan said he would vote to support whichever option posed the least safety risk – a 2000’ cul-de-sac or connection to the north.
Ms. Day said the code did not provide guidance for comparing the potential hazards of these two options. She pointed out that one benefit to the current plat was that it led traffic to a controlled intersection. She responded to questioning that it was true that, if the cul-de-sac were blocked for some reason, it would leave no access to the subdivision. However, there was a low probability of total blockage occurring.
Ms. Day responded to questioning that, in Staff’s opinion, the original subdivision design was preferable in terms of connectivity. However, the current design was “livable”, and Staff did not think it likely that the area would never redevelop (leaving the cul-de-sac in place indefinitely).
Staff spoke about the length of the cul-de-sac, answering questions about how cul-de-sacs are defined and measured.
It was noted that one of the Commission’s possible actions was approval with recommended revisions. Burress stated that the Commission technically had the ability to recommend changing the plat back to its original design with northern connectivity.
Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, spoke on behalf of the applicant, noting the position of this project between the elected body and the Planning Commission. He said the current design was meant to respond to the neighborhood and the City Commission.
Mr. Keeney said the proposed cul-de-sac was intended as a temporary measure. Although all parties recognized there was no guarantee redevelopment would occur to the west, such redevelopment was highly anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant responded to questioning that the “best solution is not going to happen”, but that this design was good as a short-term solution. He was present to advocate whatever plan he could get through the approval process. Mr. Keeney said the single issue with the proposed plat was the cul-de-sac, and the Planning Commission had approved cul-de-sacs longer than this one.
No member of the public spoke on this item.
Ms. Day responded to questioning that one City Commissioner had said he could not support this subdivision design without an area plan. Other City Commissioners had commented on land use issues in general but had not commented more specifically on this plan.
Angino asked what was left for the Commission to discuss, since the City Commission had already made their decision. He objected to the fact that the Planning Commission was becoming the “handmaiden” of the City Commission – he did not want to “waste time” discussing matters that had already been decided.
Riordan said it appeared the Planning Commission was on sturdy ground for granting the variance, since it clearly met the criteria of hardship not create through an action of the applicant.
Motioned by Riordan, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the variance to allow a cul-de-sac in excess of 1000’ on 22nd Court.
Burress said the Commission had to decide if they were going to leave politics “on the floor”. He felt the motion on the floor brought politics into the Planning Commission arena, which was not typical. In this case, he said there was a problem here because the Planning Commission had the final say in preliminary plats, but it would be irrational not to recognize that the City Commission shared the decision. Nonetheless, Burress stated he would be more comfortable if the vote were 6-4 and requested a roll call vote.
It was established that the City Commission did have a de novo hearing process.
Several Commissioners explained the reasoning behind their intended vote. Angino asked the record to state clearly that he would oppose the plat because he felt it set a “terrible precedent” to allow the City Commission to politically dictate the Planning Commission’s decisions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the variance to allow a 1000’ cul-de-sac on 22nd Court. Roll call vote.
Motion carried 7-3, with Angino, Eichhorn, Ermeling, Haase, Jennings, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Burress, Erickson and Krebs voted in opposition.
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the Preliminary Plat for Lake Estates, subject to the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions: Roll call vote.
Motion carried 6-4, with Eichhorn, Ermeling, Haase, Jennings, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Angino, Burress, Erickson and Krebs voted in opposition.
The Commission dealt with Item 6 at this point.
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 10A: C-5 TO PCD-2; .19 ACRE; 3400 & 3434 SOUTH IOWA STREET (SLD)
Z-03-18-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately .19 acres from C-5 (Commercial) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District. The property is generally described as being located at 3400 & 3434 South Iowa Street. B G Consultants, Inc., for Schnaer Real Estate Ltd. Partnership, contract purchaser, and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, property owner of record.
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
04/25/05
ITEM NO 10B: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CROWN CHEVROLET/TOYOTA; 3400 & 3434 SOUTH IOWA STREET (SLD)
FDP-03-03-05: Final Development Plan for Crown Chevrolet/Toyota. This proposed Planned Commercial Development contains approximately 12.92 acres and is located at 3400 & 3434 South Iowa Street. Submitted by B G Consultants, Inc., for Schnaer Real Estate Ltd. Partnership, contract purchaser, and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, property owner of record.
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 10C: FINAL PLAT FOR WAL-MART ADDITION NO. 3, A REPLAT OF LOT 1 AND LOT 3 IN WAL-MART ADDITION NO. 2; 3400 & 3434 SOUTH IOWA ST. (SLD)
PF-03-10-05: Final Plat for Wal-Mart Addition No. 3, a replat of Lot 1 and Lot 3 in Wal-Mart Addition No. 2, a replat of Wal-Mart Addition No. 1; Lot 2, M & L Subdivision; Lot 7a, Armstrong’s Subdivision No. 1; and Lot 1, Armstrong’s Subdivision No. 3. This proposed commercial subdivision contains approximately 12.92 acres and is located at 3400 & 3434 South Iowa Street. Submitted by B G Consultants, Inc., for Schnaer Real Estate Ltd. Partnership, contract purchaser, and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, property owner of record.
Items 10A – 10C were discussed simultaneously.
Ms. Day introduced the items, which all reflected changes being made in the field as the development evolved. Building permits have been issued for a both the Wal-Mart redevelopment and the Chevrolet/Toyota project.
Staff explained a center portion of the development had C-5 zoning, which would allow the development to proceed as proposed. However, it would be ‘cleaner’ to revise the zoning boundaries to follow the lines of the development plan and plat, which had changed during negotiations between Wal-Mart and Crown Toyota.
Staff recommended approval of all three items, with conditions as listed in the Staff Reports.
John Hampton spoke on behalf of the applicants, saying these requests stemmed from a change in plans. The original intent to demolish a portion of the existing building was now modified, and the building was to be left in its current state for the Crown Toyota use. This required revisions to the proposed driveway that in turn required additional land to accommodate the drive. A trade had been achieved with the adjacent Wal-Mart property and the items on tonight’s agenda were intended to reflect that change:
· Reflect new property boundaries;
· Make zoning of all land consistent with the project to which it now belonged;
· Allow retention of the entire Chevrolet building; and
· Allow entryway (no exit) from west into property at front of buildings.
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
The Commission had no additional questions or comments.
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Angino to approve the rezoning of .19 acres from C-5 to PCD-2 at 3400 & 3434 S. Iowa Street and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance; and
2. Subject to the following use restrictions as follows:
a. All of those permitted uses under Use Group 7 in Section 20-709.5 of the March 1, 2001 Revision to the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and any additional permitted uses under any later amendments or modifications to this section;
b. All of those permitted uses under Use Group 9 in Section 20-709.7 of the March 1, 2001 Revision to the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and any additional permitted uses under any later amendments or modifications to this section;
c. All of those permitted uses under Use Group 11 in Section 20-709.9 of the March 1, 2001 Revision to the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and any additional permitted uses under any later amendments or modifications to this section, with the exception of food stores, convenience stores, and restaurants which shall not be permitted;
d. All of those permitted uses under Use Group 12 in Section 20-709.10 of the March 1, 2001 Revision to the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and any additional permitted uses under any later amendments or modifications to this section, with the exception of bowling alleys; clubs or lodges; department stores; variety stores; food convenience stores; gasoline stations for sale to the public of gasoline; food stores (including retail bakeries); liquor, wine and beer sales; pawnshops; and theatres, which shall not be permitted;
e. All of those permitted uses under Use Group 13 in Section 20-709.11 of the March 1, 2001 Revision to the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and any additional permitted uses under any later amendments or modifications to this section, with the exception of commercial amusements parks; commercial baseball parks; carnivals or circuses; eating establishments with dancing or entertainment; eating establishments providing only drive-up service or no seating facilities; food convenience stores, including gasoline sales; food locker plant for consumer use; commercial golf driving range; golf pitch and putt or miniature golf course; sex shop; sexually oriented media store; commercial skating rink and drive-in theatre, which shall not be permitted;
f. All of those permitted uses under Use Group 14 in Section 20-709.12 of the March 1, 2001 Revision to the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and any additional permitted uses under any later amendments or modifications to this section, with the exception of pawnshops, sexually oriented cabarets, and sexually oriented motion picture theatres, which shall not be permitted; and
g. All of those permitted uses under Use Group 15 in Section 20-709.13 of the March 1, 2001 Revision to the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and any additional permitted uses under any later amendments or modifications to this section, with the exception of a bowling alley; game arcade, including video games; a theatre; and outdoor amusement, recreational or cultural facilities.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Item 10B
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Angino to approve the Final Development Plan for Crown Chevrolet/Toyota, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to include the following notes and changes per the approval of the City Stormwater Engineer:
a. Show proposed contours including elevation labels, storm structures, bottom of water feature, water surface and rim elevations;
b. Removal of General Note 14 and provision of a new note that states: “The water feature shall comply with City Code 19-11 and 9-9. A sanitary sewer connection for discharge from the pond drain or pumps shall be provided per city code.”
c. Provision of a general note that states: “Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. Building permits will not be released for this project until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.”
d. Note building heights on face of drawing; and
e. Location of dumpster enclosure for Chevrolet property per staff approval;
2. Provision of a mylar for recording including revised building elevations;
3. Provision of recording fees made payable to Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
4. Recording of the Final Plat with the Register of Deeds office prior to release of the Final Development Plan for issuance of a building permit.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Angino to approve the Final Plat for Crown Chevrolet/Toyota 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 update the Mayor’s signature block;
2. Execution of the following agreements:
a. Agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for street and street intersection improvements for street and sidewalk improvements for 33rd Street and geometric improvements for the intersections of 33rd and S. Iowa Street and the east and west entrance drives from Lot 1 and 33rd Street; and
b. Agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future street and sidewalk improvements for the extension of Ousdahl Road including the intersection of Ousdahl and 33rd Street;
3. Submission and approval of public improvement plans for all public improvements; 33rd Street, 34th Street, sidewalks, sanitary sewer, municipal water, and storm sewer per approval of the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit;
4. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and
5. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Copy of paid property tax receipt;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Provision of a master street tree plan.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 11: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW; BRANDON WOODS RETIREMENT CENTER; 1501 INVERNESS DRIVE (SMS)
UPR-03-02-05: Use Permitted upon Review request for a private club at Brandon Woods Retirement Center. The property is located at 1501 Inverness Drive and contains 3.325 acres. Submitted by Brandon Woods Club, Inc, applicant, for Brandon Woods, Inc., property owner of record.
Ms. Stogsdill introduced the item, a request to establish an indoor, private club entity within the retirement facility. Approval of this UPR will provide zoning authority for the City Clerk to sign off for a liquor license to the State. According to the application, liquor service was intended for residents and their guests at mealtimes in specified locations within the facility.
Ms. Stogsdill explained the subject property was not zoned commercially, so the UPR process was designed to allow residentially zoned properties to serve alcohol (with the proper permits and licenses) under circumstances set forth in the UPR approval.
Many letters of support were supplied in the communications packet and Staff recommended approval of the request, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
It was noted that the applicant stated liquor service would be restricted to the highlighted dining/common areas shown in the application.
Krebs asked what would prevent facilities like the Legends at KU from applying for a similar permit. Ms. Stogsdill said the UPR process and associated public hearing process allowed for individual review of each request. The process also provided for review and possible revocation of the UPR if complaints were received or the user as found to be violating the conditions of approval.
It was noted that UPR’s did not typically include a time limit.
It was verified that the Commission could add a condition that the UPR was specific to this user if there was concern about a change in use.
Donna Bell spoke on behalf of the applicant, explaining the facility historically had been able to serve liquor, but the license had mistakenly been allowed to lapse. She clarified that the facility intended to provide liquor service to residents and their guests during meal times as part of the resident’s meal package. Service was not intended for anyone other than residents and their guests.
Ms. Bell stated again that the highlighted areas shown in the application were the only areas intended for liquor service. She said the applicant was not opposed to a condition limiting service to the areas shown.
No member of the public spoke on this item.
Krebs expressed concern about precedent and asked that the record be clear that liquor service was allowed only in the dining areas. This was intended to denote the difference between this situation and an open bar.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Burress to approve the Use Permitted upon Review for Brandon Woods Retirement Facility 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, 10-0.
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 12: RESCIND MINIMUM MAINTENANCE ROAD DESIGNATION FOR E1800 ROAD FROM N 900 THENCE SOUTH 0.8 MILE (BA)
MM-12-02-04: Request to rescind the minimum maintenance road designation for E 1800 Road from N 900 thence south approximately 0.8 mile. Requested by Douglas County Public Works for the Palmyra Township Board. This item was tabled at the January Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Ahrens introduced the item, a request to rescind the minimum maintenance designation for a section of E1800 Road. The request was initiated by the Palmyra Township Board in October 2004 and supported by the County Public Works Department.
Staff explained the Commission tabled this proposal from the January meeting in anticipation of the adoption of Rural Development Standards to provide better guidance for considering the rural development issues associated with this request. These standards had not yet been adopted, but the County Commission had specifically directed Staff to place the item on the Planning Commission agenda and ask the Commission to forward a recommendation at the earliest opportunity. The County Commission intended to consider the item on their own agenda on Wednesday, May 4, 2005.
Staff recommended approval of the request as presented.
Burress asked how many lots (maximum) could be developed along this section of E1800 with the elimination of the minimum maintenance designation. Mr. Ahrens responded that 16 lots would be possible, but the property owner had applied for building permits for 8 lots.
No member of the public spoke on this item.
Burress said he would oppose the request because, “we don’t need eight more 5-acre exemptions or eight more buildings out in the sticks.” He said eight lots might seem like an insignificant number, but it set a precedent of giving Townships the power to develop. He was concerned that any Township could build a road and follow with development.
Lawson commented that this road had been in place for 100+ years and was currently maintained to full maintenance standards. He suggested this was a “done deal”.
Eichhorn asked if this section of E1800 Road was not currently a “spot zone” of minimum maintenance road designation.
Haase said backhanded regulation of development was undesirable and there were some working towards a new, better system. He said he would vote in favor of the request as a statement against backhanded regulation. Burress noted that this was the only control mechanism available at this time.
Ermeling referenced the comments of a speaker at the January meeting who spoke about the number of people currently using the road. She asked if this information supported the idea that full maintenance standards were needed to accommodate current use.
Lawson said there were also legal and liability issues related to road maintenance. He asked if denial of the request would put the Township at a liability risk.
Mr. Ahrens said the road’s condition would not change, since the Township was already maintaining the road to full maintenance standards. The primary effect of the change in designation was that building permits would be allowed for development along this portion of E1800 Road.
Motioned by Angino, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the request to rescind the Minimum Maintenance designation for the stated section of E1800 Road.
Motion carried 9-0-1, with Angino, Eichhorn, Ermeling, Erickson, Haase, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Burress abstained.
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 13: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR E4 EXCAVATING; 1452 EAST 1 ROAD (PGP)
CUP-02-03-05: Conditional Use Permit for E4 Excavating. The property is located at 1452 East 1 Road, and contains approximately 10.96 acres. Submitted by Robin L. Edmonds for Shirley Edmonds, property owner of record.
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a request to allow an excavation operation in a rural residential/farmland area. He said the only structure visible from the subject property is the residence of a relative of the applicant.
Mr. Patterson outlined the history of this project, beginning with an industrial rezoning request that was denied by the Planning Commission and deferred indefinitely by the County Commission. The Planning Commission initiated a Text Amendment to allow excavation uses as a conditional use, which was approved by both the Planning Commission and County Commission. The applicant was now following through with a request for a CUP to allow the existing business to remain.
It was noted that the business had been in continuous operation in this location since the 1970, supplying 24/7 service of rural water lines.
Staff recommended approval of the project as proposed, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. One of those conditions was a 5-year review period and 10-year expiration date. The County Commission had the ability to remove these sunset provisions and had a precedent of doing so for public utility services.
It was clarified that the site plan going forward with the CUP included the provision of red cedar trees to the north for screening purposes. The site plan also covered the potential for future expansion for material storage. Staff expressed no objection to these elements.
Robin Edmonds, applicant, was present to respond to questions.
No member of the public spoke on this item.
The Commission had no additional questions or comments.
Motioned by Angino, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the Conditional Use Permit for E-4 Excavating 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:
1. The permit will be administratively reviewed by the County in 5 years (Calendar Year 2010).
2. The permit will expire at the end of 10 years (Calendar Year 2015), unless an application for renewal is approved by the local governing body.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Recess Planning Commission, call to order the Metropolitan Planning Organization meeting.
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 14: AMEND 2004-2008 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (BA)
Amend 2004-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to add state and federally-funded projects for:
Mr. Ahrens introduced the item, explaining that projects that were not in the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) were not eligible to receive state or federal finding, even if funding was available.
The Commission was asked to act in its capacity as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to amend the TIP to include projects that had been approved for funding.
Staff recommended approval of the amendment as presented.
No member of the public spoke on this item.
It was suggested that TAC needed to look in detail at the 31st Street corridor and phasing of all improvements.
Angino asked why Peterson Road improvements were not included in the TIP. Staff explained that the TIP was financially constrained and was intended to contain projects that were financially feasible within those constraints. Peterson Road improvements were not possible within the financial boundaries set for this document.
Eichhorn asked if the Kasold Street project could include the removal of the stop sign at Kasold and 8th Streets. Mr. Ahrens said this was not part of the current proposal and commented that it was difficult to get a stop sign removed once it was in place.
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Angino to approve the TIP amendment and Transit Plan as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 15: AMEND 2005 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (BA)
Mr. Ahrens explained this was somewhat of a technicality, made necessary by recent changes to the Federal contracting and purchasing guidelines. The Commission was asked to act in their capacity as the Metropolitan Planning Organization to revise several budget items in the 2005 Unified Planning Work Program:
Changes to the Federal guidelines included:
· Federal aid recipients must follow local or Federal regulations - whichever is more stringent.
·Sole-source contacting or purchasing is no longer permitted.
· Contract extensions of on-call services is no longer permitted. An RFP must be issued for all contract services.
Mr. Ahrens explained several projects that would be impacted by the changes, especially the RFP requirement.
TAC had discussed the revisions at their March 3, 2005 meeting and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment as presented.
No member of the public spoke on this item.
The Commission had no other questions or comments on this issue.
Motioned by Angino, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the amended 2005 UPWP as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
As a related issue, Mr. Ahrens reminded the Commission (MPO) that KDOT representatives would be making a presentation on MPO membership and duties in May.
Adjourn the MPO, reconvene the Planning Commission meeting.
04/25/05
ITEM NO. 16: PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) FOR YEARS 2006 THROUGH 2011 (DRG)
Presentation of Capital Improvements Plan Process and receipt of proposed Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for years 2006-2011.
KSA 12-748 provides the basis for the Capital Improvements Program (CIP), which is a planning document that helps to guide City investments in constructing public facilities or utilities that are in conformance with the adopted comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission’s role in the CIP process is to review the six-year plan for specific public improvements (roads, utilities, buildings, parks & sports facilities) or other improvements made with public monies for conformance with HORIZON 2020. The Planning Commission forwards their recommendations for conformity with the comprehensive plan to the governing body for final action. Projects listed on the CIP may not be built during the projected timeframe identified in the document. The City Commission determines which projects will be funded when they review and update the 5-year Capital Improvement Budget during the annual budgetary process. Public comment will be received at the May 25, 2005, Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Guntert introduced the item, a call for public comment on the 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). No action was required of the Planning Commission at this time.
Mr. Guntert explained various changes to the CIP review process that were being used to streamline the process and make it more understandable. These included summarized tables, revised criteria, clearer criteria descriptions and a GIS mapping/tracking system for all CIP projects.
Mr. Guntert also explained the new membership of the CIP review committee and said the input of the Planning Commission and City Commission members (Burress and Hack) had been invaluable.
Further enhancements to the CIP process were being developed and would be applied to the process in future years.
198 projects were identified for consideration in the 2006-2011 time frame, with 51 other projects identified for a longer timeline. Most of the longer-term projects were from City departments. Mr. Guntert explained the criteria review process applied to most of the projects proposed for 2006-2007, noting that some projects were not reviewed according to the criteria matrix because they were already approved through one or more adopted Master Plans.
The final document would come before the Planning Commission in May 2005 for their consideration and recommendation.
No member of the public spoke on this item.
Mr. Guntert provided information about various projects upon request.
Burress asked what further enhancements were being considered for future CIP reviews. Mr. Guntert said it was suggested that the 2006-2011 review body take part in recommending changes. Burress said he had a number of ideas, but changes could take place in two ways – revising the current process to make it better or starting over with an entirely new format. He asked if the review body would be open to radical changes instead of incremental ones. It was suggested that there would be more time to discuss this issue at the Wednesday meeting.
The Commission agreed to move the remainder of the Monday agenda to the end of the Wednesday agenda.
Ms. Finger introduced new Planning Staff member Brad Ellis.
RECESS – 10:00 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, April 27, 2005
April 2005
Meeting Minutes DRAFT
_______________________________________________________________________
April 27, 2005 – Meeting reconvened at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners present: Angino, Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Day, Patterson and Pool
_______________________________________________________________________
Burress asked how the Commission wanted to proceed on Item 19, since the development plan was too incomplete for Staff to make a recommendation. He said he assumed the developers wanted feedback on the plan, but he was not sure that was appropriate.
Item 11 – Use Permitted Upon Review; Brandon Woods Retirement Center; 1501 Inverness Drive
General Communications
BEGIN PUBLIC HEARING (APRIL 27, 2005):
04/27/05
ITEM NO. 17: RM-1 TO O-1; 2.69 ACRES; NORTHEAST CORNER OF WAKARUSA DRIVE & HARVARD ROAD (PGP)
Z-12-55-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 2.69 acres from RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential) District to O-1 (Office) District. The property is generally described as being located east of Wakarusa Drive and north of Harvard Road. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Mustard Seed Christian Fellowship, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the February Planning Commission meeting by request of the applicant.
Angino abstained.
Mr. Patterson introduced the item by describing the surrounding zonings and uses of the surrounding area. He explained that the O-1 zoning district would convert to CO (Office Commercial) with adoption of the new zoning code. This district would allow office, commercial, restaurant, fast food and retail sales among other uses.
Mr. Patterson explained that the Comprehensive Plan designated that commercial uses would not extend to this area. Staff recommended denial of the rezoning to O-1, since it would allow a variety of commercial/retail uses.
Staff explained in response to questioning that other developments had recently converted proposed office space to residential uses, seeming to indicate that office space was not in high demand. Mr. Patterson said the current zoning code allowed an option, the Planned Office Development, for strictly office uses. Staff did not recommend this option because the City was trying to move away from Planning Unit Developments.
Staff had received a letter expressing concern about traffic impacts, specifically at the intersection of Harvard & Wakarusa. It was clarified that the City Commission had directed a study of the entire Wakarusa corridor, but at this time no traffic control elements were planned.
Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, spoke on behalf of the applicant, saying the subject area was once on the outskirts of the City, but the rest of development had caught up and the church wanted to move farther into the rural area.
Mr. Keeney said buyers were interested in the subject property for office uses because of its location. He added that approving the rezoning would allow the church to maximize property value and provide a use with a higher tax base for the good of the community.
It was verified that POD zoning was not an available option through use of the Lesser Change Table.
Pastor Williams said the church was not intent on moving, but was looking at the possibility and would like to make the property marketable. He said the church had pursued office zoning based on their understanding of a statement by Staff that this may provide a transition between the multi-family and commercial uses.
Pastor Williams explained that the church had activities going on during day and evening hours, every day of the week, so an office use would not make a substantial impact to the existing traffic situation.
No member of the public spoke on this issue.
Mr. Keeney asked to address the traffic concerns raised earlier. He pointed out that the traffic generated by multi-family uses (as currently zoned) would be similar to that generated by an office use.
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was verified there was no intention to develop the subject property according to its current multi-family zoning.
The Commission discussed with Staff that the new regulations did not have an office-only zoning district and the current POD zoning category did allow limited types of commercial uses.
Mr. Keeney responded to questioning that the applicant had discussed a larger office request but had gotten a negative response from Staff.
The Commission generally agreed that they did not want commercial uses allowed on the subject property.
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Erickson to deny the rezoning request.
The Commission discussed conditioning the zoning to allow no commercial uses. Ms. Finger said new information had recently come to light regarding the Commission’s ability to condition zoning. However, Staff’s understanding of these regulations was incomplete and Ms. Finger was not able to recommend a specific condition at this time.
There was discussion about wording a condition to allow Legal Staff to write specific language. Another suggestion was to table or defer the item to allow Staff to draft language with legal Staff assistance.
Mr. Keeney said the request was not urgent and asked if the applicant could return with a revised request in one month. It was suggested that that the restriction of uses would constitute a significant change to allow a successive petition to be submitted earlier than 12 months.
The Commission advised the applicant that, if a POD request were submitted, it would need to be accompanied by a development plan. Burress said he would also need to see data showing either a demand for office space or evidence that this property was so small that it did not make a significant difference.
The motion on the floor (for denial) was withdrawn with unanimous consent.
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Ermeling to defer the item to the June 2005 agenda meeting.
Motion carried 9-0-1, with Angino abstaining.
04/27/05
ITEM NO. 18: A TO A-1; 6.0 ACRES; E 1500 ROAD BETWEEN N 1000 ROAD AND N 1050 ROAD (LAP)
Z-03-14-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately six acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located on E 1500 Road between N 1000 and N 1050 Roads. Submitted by Jeff and Jaclyn Hout, contract purchasers, and Jo Anne Polk, property owner of record.
Ms. Pool introduced the item, a rezoning request to allow the construction of a single-family home on 6 acres within a 45-acre parcel. This request conformed to several policies in HORIZON 2020, and was consistent with surrounding development.
Ms. Pool said the County Commission had recently determined that infrastructure availability may substitute in some cases for contiguity requirements. She noted that the subject property is surrounded by easily extended services. Ms. Finger stated that the Commission had recommended approval of other rural subdivisions that did not meet the contiguity requirement, but action at the County Commission was mixed.
Staff recommended approval of the request, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
Burress asked if the Commission had any regulatory way to reject the development of a 6-acre residential lot in the Urban Growth Area (UGA). Ms. Finger said the Subdivision Regulations provided criteria a rural subdivision was supposed to meet. The Commission may deny the request, regardless of the County Commission’s opinion on service availability, because the policy strictly states contiguity is required.
Staff noted that the County Commission has discussed with Staff finding a more accurate system for evaluating rural development requests than the contiguity test, but at least one County Commissioner will continue to strictly apply the criteria until another method is adopted.
Jackie Hout, applicant, explained the intent to build a home on a family farm. She said there were several homes in the area on unplatted lots and asked why a plat of survey was not adequate for her own request.
It was discussed that the subject property was located in the UGA, which meant A-1 zoning was needed in order to develop. Platting was then required to obtain a building permit in A-1 zoning. It was suggested that other existing homes in the area were developed before this regulation was adopted, or that they had been developed through the use of the 5-acre exemption.
Ms. Finger responded to questioning that the policy purpose of platting in the UGA was to identify right-of-way and easements for future growth.
PUBLIC HEARING
Melinda Henderson spoke about the code sections dealing with platting in the UGA, saying the language was not user-friendly. She said that nowhere in the Subdivision Regulations was a simple statement that, “You must plat within the UGA.” She suggested that the new regulations be written more simply.
Allen Black spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters. He said the League was concerned that the subject property did not fulfill the requirement for contiguity, because the adjacent homes were developed using the 5-acre exemption (not platted).
Mr. Black said this was the second subdivision requested in the expanded UGA when there is currently no guidance about where subdivisions should be located. The League was concerned that this trend would continue, resulting in random rural development.
Ms. Hout said she was moving forward with her request at this time at the suggestion of the County Commission, based on their determination that availability of services was an adequate substitute for contiguity.
Ms. Pool noted that the County Zoning Regulations stated that single-family residences were allowed in the A zoning district, provided the lot is exempt from the County Subdivision Regulations. Another section of the County regulations states that single-family homes are allowed outright in A-1.
The Commission had no additional comments or questions.
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Jennings to approve the rezoning as requested.
Burress stated he would abstain from the vote. He explained that, even though the request seemed reasonable, he could not support the policy trend toward “random development.” Ermeling said she would also abstain.
Krebs said she agreed with the concerns expressed by other Commissioners, but she was comfortable supporting this request because it was for a single house.
Haase said the County Development Code was not perfect, but he did not want to randomly discriminate against any particular project. He said that this request appeared to meet all the criteria and was reasonable.
Riordan asked if the Commission would like to request a moratorium on subdivision in the UGA until the new code was in place to provide guidance for UGA development. Angino said he would not support a moratorium, saying the imperfections of the current code were not the fault of the applicants. He did not want to penalize anyone who came forward with an application that met the existing rules.
Burress said a moratorium was a good tool to “freeze the situation” while the City repaired wide spread policy problems.
Haase said the County Commission had rejected a previous request from the Rural Planning Committee for a moratorium similar to the one being discussed.
Lawson called the question with unanimous consent.
Motion on the floor was to approve the rezoning of 6.0 acres from A to A-1 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 condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning.
Motion carried 8-0-2, with Angino, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Burress and Ermeling abstained.
15-minute recess, meeting reconvened at 7:45 p.m.
04/27/05
ITEM NO. 19A: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BAUER FARM; NORTH OF W. 6TH STREET AND EAST OF WAKARSUA DRIVE (PGP)
PDP-03-02-05: Preliminary Development Plan for Bauer Farm. This proposed planned commercial development, planned residential development and planned office development contains approximately 43.88 acres. The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6th Street (U.S. Highway 40) between Wakarusa Drive and Folks Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Free State Holdings, Inc., contract purchaser, and Carolena Ltd & Henrysflower, LLC, property owners of record.
04/27/05
ITEM NO. 19B: PRD-2 to POD-1; 2.59 ACRES; NORTH OF W. 6TH STREET AND EAST OF WAKARSUA DRIVE (PGP)
Z-03-16-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 2.59 acres from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District to POD-1 (Planned Office Development) District. The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6th Street (U.S. Highway 40) between Wakarusa Drive and Folks Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Free State Holdings, Inc., contract purchaser, and Carolena Ltd & Henrysflower, LLC, property owners of record.
04/27/05
ITEM NO. 19C: PRD-2 to PCD-2; 8.23 ACRES; NORTH OF W. 6TH STREET AND EAST OF WAKARSUA DRIVE (PGP)
Z-03-17-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 8.23 acres from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District to PCD-2 (Planned Office Development) District. The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6th Street (U.S. Highway 40) between Wakarusa Drive and Folks Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Free State Holdings, Inc., contract purchaser, and Carolena Ltd & Henrysflower, LLC, property owners of record.
Items 19A – 19C were discussed simultaneously.
Eichhorn said he thought the Planning Commission should take action on the items as submitted.
Angino said the Commission could provide guidance on some of the identified issues, but some of the plan deficiencies were strictly City Commission issues. He did not want to spend a lot of time talking about things that they had no control over.
Riordan said he was concerned about considering an item with no findings and no staff recommendation.
It was suggested that “Use of Process for Feedback” be placed on the Parking Lot list for future discussion.
Ms. Finger said that Staff’s recommendation would logically have been for denial because so much of the proposed development plan did not meet code. However, the applicant wanted to present a new concept and there was no forum for that discussion without bringing it forward in this manner.
No recommendation was given because, in Staff’s opinion, the project was not ready to move forward to the City Commission. However, the item had been in the office for several months and Staff needed direction on how to evaluate deviations from code.
The Commission discussed how to proceed. Some felt the issues were numerous but small and the Commission should apply themselves to one problem at time. Others felt it was ambitious to think the Commission could provide adequate direction tonight. It was suggested that the Commission call a study session, either tonight or at another time, to informally review and comment on the proposal. It was alternately noted that a new subcommittee would be formed later tonight that would be ideal to study this problem.
The Commission discussed whether to deal with the proposal according to the current code, considering the waivers and variance as requested. It was suggested that it would be more appropriate to craft text amendments to the current code to make the project conforming. The other alternative was to make sure the design standards used in the proposal were reflected in the new code that was anticipated for adoption in late 2005. It was pointed out that both options would take about the same amount of time.
Concern was expressed that the Commission was setting a bad precedent of allowing unfinished projects to use the public hearing process to gather comments.
It was discussed that the proposal included many design elements the city wanted to pursue, but it was premature to try to apply these standards today.
The applicant responded to questioning that he would like to continue with the public hearing. The Commission agreed to continue the items as regular agenda issues.
Mr. Patterson described the items surrounding the request for a Planned Unit Development encompassing two areas bisected by Champion Lane. He identified the proposed street network and land uses.
Mr. Patterson outlined the restrictions that were applied to the rezoning approvals in 2004 for the sections east and west of Champion Lane. He also described the density and types of housing units for each section of the development.
It was noted that the development had no access to W. 6th Street other than Champion Lane. KDOT had previously purchased the right-of-way for access management that would be needed for the proposed right-in/right-out access point. KDOT would not be receptive to additional access points to the controlled highway.
Mr. Patterson gave an overview of the multiple comments received from City Departments. He said Staff could recommend approval of the two rezonings, subject to conditions as listed, but could not at this time make a recommendation on the Preliminary Development Plan.
Krebs referenced the regulations applied to Community Commercial development, noting that this node was identified as a CC200 and was already overbuilt. Ms. Finger explained that the Comprehensive Plan recognized that the node was already beyond the 200,000 square foot limit, and recommended a total of 62,000 additional gross square feet of commercial space for this corner.
It was verified that the Commission could restrict the PCD zoning to specific uses (i.e. Community Theater).
Staff explained that one variance was requested in addition to the 8 waivers to allow a reduced street setback along W. 6th Street. This would create a much different streetscape than existed today and would become more complicated if/when 6th Street expansion was needed.
Phil Struble introduced a number of people present to speak on behalf of the development. Mr. Struble corrected the previous statement, saying this was not a request for input. This development had been in process for over a year and the applicant wanted to move forward.
Mr. Struble said the New Urbanism standards shown in this proposal were an efficient way to design that had been applied to three projects in the Kansas City area. He described the lengthy process the applicant went through in discussing these developments with Kansas City Planning Staff.
Mr. Struble said the (Kansas City) City Department comments were not unique, that the departments wanted the same thing they always wanted but that these things were not efficient. He described discussions with the Sanitation Department, saying the department had hated the proposal at first. However, lengthy educational discussions resulted in successful negotiations.
Mike Treanor said he was excited about introducing a new concept in Lawrence for a mixed-use development with 24-hour activity. He said he had spent a lot of time visiting similar developments nationwide, “seeing how they work.”
Mr. Treanor said this project was designed to conform to the new development code and the new commercial design guidelines. It would be nice to have a workshop format to bring forward new concepts like this one for discussion, but there was no such provision in today’s code.
Mr. Treanor spoke about the elements included in the proposed development, including design (landscaping, setback, street network, pedestrian network, etc.), use mixes and centralized civic uses.
Mr. Struble listed positive elements of the proposed development:
· Centralized community theater – allows entire evening of activities without driving;
· Unique living experience – structures, parking types and layout that aids in diverting traffic from residential areas and slowing traffic overall;
· Transition for single-family;
· Interesting, pedestrian-friendly streetscape;
· Walkable – sidewalks lead to activity centers and eliminate the 80’ right-of-way that bisects the site;
· Four-sided architecture for commercial uses – parking not readily visible from the outside and ability to block off central commercial street for activity
Mr. Struble addressed the issues raised by Staff:
· Density – This development proposes 12.5 dwelling units per acre, similar to a relatively low multi-family use.
· Vertical integration – This kind of integration is focused at one end of the proposal.
· Champion Lane – This street is key to the community theater element. Free State High School does not need additional access and there were good land use reasons to eliminate it.
· Right-in/right-out – The applicant does not own access rights to the subject property. Talks are going on with KDOT about a right-in/right-out, and KDOT has the final say, even if the Commission approves this design.
· Allowable uses – The applicant understands that additional zoning will be required. This is a hybrid proposal Some uses – not all – will need to cater to the motoring public (drive-thrus).
· Widening Overland Drive – There is a misunderstanding about this. The applicant is willing to improve the road as needed for safety but feels it will not be necessary to widen the entire stretch of road to achieve reasonable safety.
· Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan – This plan follows the Commercial Design Guidelines by providing infill development, a broad range of uses, medium density, creative focal points and integration with the neighborhood.
Burress said it was known that W. 6th Street would fail within 10 years and asked if the applicant could still do the project if the City retained adequate right-of-way for future street improvements. Mr. Struble said this would be possible.
Burress referenced connectivity problems that would arise if Champion Lane were blocked. He asked if the applicant could achieve the desired effect by using boulevards. Mr. Struble said it would be possible but more difficult to accomplish the same level of pedestrian connectivity.
It was discussed that the City was in the process of hiring a consultant to evaluate the Market Study and that will be made available to the Commission.
Burress said he would like to see a detailed pedestrian map, because he thought there were a couple areas that would be difficult for handicapped persons.
Various applicant representatives responded to Commission questions:
· KDOT did share their opinion with the applicant that W. 6th Street would fail and would require improvements in the next 10 years. However, KDOT representatives also stated that the intersection failures would be at other sections of W. 6th Street and would have nothing to do with this project.
· One reason to keep Champion Lane closed is to prevent cut-through traffic during peak hours at the high school. However, this project is designed to lead traffic in other directions.
· The W. 6th Street & Folks Road sidewalk systems will provide (pedestrian) integration with adjacent neighborhoods.
· This proposal includes 61,350 square feet of retail space, which did not include office and bank space.
· The taller (three-story) mixed-use buildings are proposed in the center of the development, leaving single-story commercial buildings along W. 6th Street.
· Some of the commercial buildings along W. 6th Street would include drive-thru uses. The applicant was thinking more of banks, but a fast-food component would be a necessary element.
· The traffic impact study does take drive-thru uses into consideration as part of the commercial center.
· The original nodal plan had not allowed drive-thru uses for the northeast corner because of traffic generation concerns, but at least two City Commissioners had agreed with Mr. Struble’s opposition to that restriction when the original plan was considered.
· The lots are proposed to range in size from the minimum 4,000 square feet to 1/2 an acre. A waiver is requested to allow approximately 15 residential lots of 3,500 square feet.
· Lot sizes, setbacks and patterns are (urban design) formula driven.
· Data on housing costs is not yet available. As an approximation, a High School teacher should be able to afford a housing unit in the proposed development.
· Many of the proposed housing units will be condominiums.
· The developer hopes to have design control over franchises and other businesses in the development.
Gwen Klingenberg spoke on behalf of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association. She said KDOT was in the process of completing a CORSIM model of W. 6th Street and Wakarusa, and preliminary results indicated this intersection would function at a ‘D’ Level of Service with the proposed project in place.
The Association appreciated the development concept, but felt it was unfortunate this was proposed for an area already prone to traffic concerns. Ms. Klingenberg noted a few existing traffic safety issues and asked the Commission to consider the impact of this development on existing neighborhoods.
It was discussed that a stoplight would not be placed on Champion Lane if it did not connect because it was currently a private drive. It was verified that State policy was not to signalize private access drives.
Allen Black spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters, expressing concern about the issues raised by Staff and the number of waivers requested. The League asked that the Commission not rezone the area until a plan was in place. They also asked that rezoning be conditioned upon specific uses and housing types.
Mr. Black responded to questioning that the League would prefer that a plan was in place before rezoning were approved, rather than approving the rezoning conditioned upon an approved plan.
Doni Mooberry-Slough, President of the Lawrence Community Theatre, said the theater had outgrown its current location and was excited about an opportunity to be a part of the proposed mixed-use development. She said the theatre would be active from 5-7 nights a week and had other activities going on during the daytime.
Alan Cowles spoke on behalf of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, providing more detail about the Association’s traffic concerns. He said 6th & Wakarusa was already planned as a very high-volume intersection and more development was already approved for that intersection. The Association was concerned that every piece of currently-vacant land along W. 6th Street would ask for and be allowed to develop to its maximum capacity.
Mr. Cowles said the Association liked the proposal and asked what kind of protection the neighborhoods had if this development did not go through.
Mr. Struble said the applicant would like to move out of the current holding pattern. If the Commission could not support the proposal, Mr. Struble asked that they provide some kind of direction.
Several Commissioners expressed varied concerns about traffic generation and capacity. It was established through numerous questions that each potential use shown on the plan had been included (and possibly over-anticipated) in the TIS. The TIS also used ITE standard averages to take into account traffic coming in from all directions.
Jennings suggested that this kind of development would generate less traffic than other uses, since the majority of shops are destination stores with less draw than something like a grocery store. He also said some Commissioners were imagining the development much larger than it really was. This development would equate in size to about one Downtown block.
Mr. Walstead supplied requested traffic data, saying the development would generate about 1200 trips at the p.m. peak hour on a week day and about 25-30% would be pass-by traffic.
Mr. Struble responded to questioning that the applicant acknowledged the need to provide adequate open space and was not requesting a waiver to reduce the required open space. However, recalculating the entire project for each modification was time-consuming and the applicant did not want to go into that process multiple times until receiving the Commission’s opinion on the plan.
There was discussion about the possibility of a Convention Center with or without an accompanying hotel use.
Mr. Treanor said KDOT agreed with the applicant about the value of right-turn access points to get traffic off W. 6th Street, but they had a standing order from the executive committee not to allow right-in/right-out access on 6th Street. He said the proposal would return to the executive committee with a right-in only design.
Mr. Walstead said the biggest impact to 6th & Wakarusa traffic would be the construction of a 15th Street connection to Highway K-10.
Mr. Patterson said the Commission needed to understand how much more difficult it was to bring forward this kind of proposal than a conventional rezoning and development plan. Encouragement was needed to show that this a direction the community wanted to head, as well as a ‘road map’ for how to move in that direction.
Burress asked if Staff could produce a cleaner report in one month? Ms. Finger said Staff would have nothing to add until given direction about what was acceptable. Staff asked for concrete direction, particularly about the waivers and variance. She noted that returning with a new Staff Report assumed a revised development plan.
Haase said he thought it was Staff’s role, not the Commission’s, to give advice on what code sections needed to be varied. He asked what kind of time Staff would need to bring back a report stating “what rules make sense.”
Riordan said there seemed to be two large issues - staying within the square footage guidelines for commercial space and the potential widening of 6th Street. He was comfortable leaving other issues to Staff.
Eichhorn asked if an overlay district would simplify the situation, understanding that this would not be possible until the new code was in place.
Ms. Finger repeated that Staff had nothing to work within except the current code. Without additional direction, Staff could only advise the applicant to bring back a completely different plan that conformed to the current regulations. Deferring or otherwise delaying the issue for additional Staff review was pointless unless the Commission provided direction. Ms. Finger said Staff supported moving forward with some kind of New Urbanism, but it was ad hoc to do this while writing the code.
It was clarified that granting the requested waivers was not enough to support plan approval. Many other pieces of information were lacking and were needed before Staff could make a recommendation on the development plan.
Haase asked for Staff’s opinion on how the Commission should proceed. Ms. Finger said the Staff Report requested guidance. This did not necessarily mean assurance that the project would or would not be approved, but required some indication of whether this was the direction the Commission wanted to go. She said it was possible to craft regulations following that direction, although this may be premature in light of the new subcommittee being formed and the upcoming New Urbanism conference. She added that it would take just as long to amend the current code to allow this type of development as it would take to get the proposed new code adopted.
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, said the applicant might not leave with approval tonight, but he would like to know if there was a sentiment that this was the right direction. If so, the applicant could begin discussions with City Departments and KDOT. He asked if the Commission would walk through the 8 waivers and comment if there were any that would be flatly refused. In Staff’s opinion, there was not enough information to act on the waivers or the variance request.
Ms. Finger asked for a straw poll indicating whether the Commission was leaning towards amending the existing code or creating an overlay for use with the new code. Burress asked which option the applicant preferred. Mr. Treanor said these issues were being dealt with across the nation and the applicant had waited a long time to get this “test project” off the ground, while the City worked on the new code and new design guidelines. He said further time delays were significant.
It was suggested that amending the old code was inefficient, since it may become obsolete within 6 months.
It was discussed that, because of due process, getting the new code in place could not be sped up significantly. Staff anticipated adoption in late 2005.
Haase said he would be willing to recognize any member of the public that wished to address the issues on the floor.
Mary Doveton, Director of the Lawrence Community Theater, said the theater was a non-profit organization and therefore could not do any fundraising for its potential relocation until the project was approved. Once the project was approved, the theater faced at least 2-years of concept development before they would bring forward their own plan. She supported a common-sense approach to expedite the process for the good of the community as a whole.
Jennings suggested proceeding with the existing code, giving the applicant some concrete direction about what elements must be changed and what might be acceptable. He commented that delays increased residential costs. Angino said it appeared that the Commission had no control over certain delays – it would take at least 6-7 months to get the project approved, even using the current code.
Burress asked to separate the issues of new vs. old code and direction on the waivers. He suggested directing Staff to pursue the overlay district option and giving the applicant an idea of which waivers they (the Commission) did not oppose.
The Commission agreed that the 6th Street setbacks were the most significant area of concern. Several Commissioners stated that they did not feel that Champion Lane should be connected. Others felt this would be an appropriate design. Other specific comments related to the total amount of commercial space and the inclusion of “so many” drive-thrus.”
Staff noted that multiple street trees were shown in the utility easement along 6th Street and would not be allowed to be placed in that location.
Mr. Struble responded to questioning that the applicant would like to act on the rezonings, with the understanding that each would be conditioned upon approval of a development plan.
It was discussed that the Commission could talk about the overlay district option at the May Mid-Month meeting.
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Angino to direct Staff to proceed with the development of an overlay district for the area identified in the Preliminary Development Plan for Bauer Farm [PDP-03-02-05].
Motion carried 8-1-1, with Angino, Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor. Jennings voted in opposition and Lawson abstained.
Angino and Lawson left at 10:25 p.m.
Burress suggested a motion to table the development plan would be appropriate and asked what time frame would be adequate. Ms. Finger said Staff would not be comfortable with recommending waivers without policy support. At least 6-7 months would be needed for the new code to “catch up”. Burress suggested tabling for less time and considering what progress had been made.
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Riordan to table Item 19A for four (4) months.
Motion carried 6-2, with Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor. Eichhorn and Jennings voted in opposition.
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Krebs to table Items 19B & 19C for four (4) months.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
Mr. Herndon asked what would take place when the items returned to the Commission in 4 months. It was clarified that two processes would take place simultaneously:
1. The Commission would form a new subcommittee that would work with Staff on developing an overlay district for the subject area that would allow the use of alternate design elements as proposed. The use of such an overlay district would become available with the adoption of the new code.
2. The applicant will work with Staff regarding the waivers, possibly resulting in a revised development plan based on the direction given by the Commission tonight. However, Staff was hesitant to allow the use of these waivers without initiating an accompanying set of code amendments. These amendments would be discussed as part of this option.
In four months, the Commission would evaluate the progress of both options. The applicant was asked to be prepared at that time to provide more information about traffic on 6th Street.
The meeting was extended until adjourned by the Chair with unanimous consent.
Haase questioned Staff about the availability of information gathered as part of the Market Study. Ms. Finger said her knowledge of this process was incomplete, but she understood that some of the data gathered was privileged information and not available to the public-at-large. It was pointed out that this applicant had hired the market study consultant, when Chapter 6 required an independent consultant hired by the City at the applicant’s expense. Ms. Finger said the applicant was allowed to use his own consultant because this project was in process before Chapter 6 was adopted.
In response to the speakers from the Lawrence Community Theater, the Commission stated that the theater was seen as a positive element and the theater expansion would be encouraged as part of the community.
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
04/27/05
ITEM NO 20A: ANNEXATION OF 17.52 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)
A-01-02-05: Annexation request for approximately 17.52 acres, located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Hanover Place, LC, Oread, LC, and Tanglewood, LC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the 2/23/05 Planning Commission meeting.
RESUME PUBLIC HEARING:
04/27/05
ITEM NO 20B: A TO PCD-2; 61.64 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)
Z-01-08-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 61.64 acres from A (Agriculture) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Hanover Place, LC, Oread, LC, Tanglewood, LC, Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, LC, and Safe Harbourt EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the 2/23/05 Planning Commission meeting.
04/27/05
ITEM NO 20C: A TO RO-1A; 19.89 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)
Z-01-09-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 19.89 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RO-1A (Residence-Office) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Hanover Place, LC, Oread, LC, Tanglewood, LC, Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, LC, and Safe Harbourt EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the 2/23/05 Planning Commission meeting.
04/27/05
ITEM NO 20D: A TO RS-2; 29.10 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)
Z-01-10-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 29.10 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Hanover Place, LC, Oread, LC, Tanglewood, LC, Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, LC, and Safe Harbourt EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the 2/23/05 Planning Commission meeting.
04/27/05
ITEM NO 20E: A TO RM-D; 4.21 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)
Z-01-11-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 4.21 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RM-D (Duplex Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Hanover Place, LC, Oread, LC, Tanglewood, LC, Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, LC, and Safe Harbourt EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the 2/23/05 Planning Commission meeting.
04/27/05
ITEM NO 20F: A TO RM-2; 13.05 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)
Z-01-12-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 13.05 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, LC, and Safe Harbour EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the 2/23/05 Planning Commission meeting.
Items 12A – 12F were deferred prior to the meeting.
MISC. ITEM NO. 1: OLD BUSINESS
Tabled Items:
Z-01-05-05: A to RS-2; 8.7 acres; northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction) (Windover at Lawrence) Tabled at the 2/23/05 meeting
Z-01-06-05: A to RM-2; 40 acres; northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction) (Windover at Lawrence) Tabled at the 2/23/05 meeting.
Z-01-07-05: A to RM-D; 4.6 acres; northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction) (Windover at Lawrence) Tabled at the 2/23/05 meeting.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Haase referenced the tabled items, saying it seemed the City Commission was not interested in pursuing this development. It was discussed whether the Commission should pull these items from the table and move ahead with denying them, following the guidance of the City Commission.
Staff was directed to place the items on the May 2005 agenda, meanwhile asking if the applicant would simply like to withdraw the items.
Jennings left at 10:35
MISC. ITEM NO. 2: CONSIDER BY-LAW AMENDMENTS
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Finger said Staff assumed the Commission was in favor of keeping the 2-meeting format and would bring a revised calendar for receipt in May 2005. Staff would also craft language for By-Law amendments reflecting the new meeting format. The Commission would receive these amendments in May and initiate them for a public hearing in June 2005.
MISC. ITEM NO. 3: OTHER BUSINESS
A. INITIATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Finger said the Commission was asked to initiate the public hearing process for three chapters:
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Eichhorn to initiate public hearings in May 2005 for the three chapters as described.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
Haase acted in his capacity as Chair to form a new subcommittee assigned to studying alternate planning concepts. Ermeling was designated as Chair, with Burress and Krebs as Commission members. Three non-Commission members would be assigned and Planning Staff would act in support. The first assignment given to this committee was to work with Staff in evaluating the waivers associated with Item 19A on tonight’s agenda [PDP-03-02-05].
ADJOURN – 10:45 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department Office.