Planning Commission Agenda Meeting
May 23 & 25, 2005
Minutes
_______________________________________________________________________
May 23, 2005 – 7:05 p.m.
Commissioners present: Angino, Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Jennings, Krebs Lawson and Riordan
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Patterson, Pool, Zollner, Guntert, Ahrens, Day and Saker
_______________________________________________________________________
MINUTES
One revision was requested by Burress to indicate that the Commission was not in 100% agreement about the design of Champion Lane (pg. 49).
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Angino to approve the minutes of the April 25 & 27, 2005 meetings as revised.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
RPC: Committee met to refine the draft Rural Development chapter. The group may meet with other municipalities to review the draft further.
CPC: Committee will meet May 24th.
PCMM: Commission met to discuss Parking Lot items. A revised list will be provided.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Finger outlined the following communications:
Item 7A – Rezoning South of Peterson Road and west of Monterey Way
AND
Item 7B – Preliminary Plat for Spring Hill No.2 (both items requested for deferral)
Item 13 – HORIZON 2020 Amendment to Chapter 9, Parks, Recreation & Open Space AND
Item14 – HORIZON 2020 Amendment to Chapter 8, Transportation
General
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRALS
Items 1, 2A & 2B were pulled from the Consent Agenda. The remainder of the Consent agenda was approved as presented.
PC Meeting 05/23/05
ITEM NO 1: NOMINATION OF STRUCTURE AT 1927 LEARNARD AVENUE (LBZ)
Receive notice of the nomination of the structure located at 1927 Learnard Avenue, the Zinn-Burroughs House, to the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.
This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Zollner explained that Chapter 22 of the City Code required all nominations to come before the Planning Commission to provide an opportunity for comment. No action was required.
Angino asked why the City did not approach the owners of structures already identified as having historic significance about having their properties nominated to the register. Ms. Zollner said that had once been the case, but modern caseloads had resulted in an applicant driven system.
It was clarified that the city preferred a specifically defined environs boundary for locally-listed properties, rather than a flat 250’ dimension. Determination of the defined boundary was based on the significance of each surrounding property.
The Commission identified the issue that had been discussed all through the nomination process that William S. Burroughs was a famous/infamous character and individuals often did not agree on the propriety of making his home a landmark.
The Commission received the nomination and took no action.
PC Meeting 05/23/05
ITEM NO 2A: FINAL PLAT FOR MARION ADDITION NO. 5; 221 W. 31ST STREET (SLD)
PF-04-11-05: Final Plat for Marion Addition No. 5. This proposed one-lot commercial subdivision contains approximately 0.842 acres. The property is generally described as being located at 221 W. 31st Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for G & P LC, property owner of record.
PC Meeting 05/23/05
ITEM NO 2B: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MARION ADDITION NO. 5; 221 W. 31ST STREET (SLD)
FDP-04-04-05: Final Development Plan for Phase V – Target Outlot. This proposed commercial subdivision contains approximately 0.842 acres. The property is generally described as being located at 221 W. 31st Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for G & P LC, property owner of record.
Items 2A & 2B were pulled from the Consent Agenda for comment and simultaneous discussion.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Burress said he pulled these items from the Consent Agenda to express for the record his regret that the Commission had not required sidewalks on this section of internal road when they had the chance.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 2A
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Jennings to approve the Final Plat for Marion Addition No. 5 and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
2. Execution of an agreement not to protest a benefit district for Street and Sidewalk improvements for 31st Street; (As previously recommended by the Planning Commission); and
3. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Item 2B
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Jennings to approve the Final Development Plan for Marion Addition No. 5 (a.k.a. Phase V-Target PCD), based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Recording of the Final Plat prior to release of the Final Development Plan for issuance of a building permit; and
2. Provision of a photometric plan.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
PC Meeting 05/23/05
ITEM NO 3: FINAL PLAT FOR HABITAT NEIGHBORHOOD ADDITION NO. 5; 800 BLOCK OF WALNUT STREET (PGP)
PF-04-13-05: Final Plat for Habitat Neighborhood Addition No. 5. This proposed 16-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 4.197 acres. The property is generally described as being located in the 800 block of Walnut Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Lawrence Habitat for Humanity, Inc., property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Angino to approve the Final Plat for Habitat Neighborhood Addition No. 5 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; and
c. Provision of a completed Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708a.
2. Submission of Public Improvement Plans to Public Works prior to filing of the Final Plat;
3. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and
4. Pinning of Lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
Swearing in of witnesses.
PC Meeting 05/23/05
ITEM NO 4: KDOT MPO BRIEFING
Receive a 20 minute presentation from KDOT regarding the process and function of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
PRESENTATION
Joel Skelley, MPO Transportation Planner for KDOT, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the history and role of the MPO. See file for paper copy of this presentation.
Issues noted that were not included in the written presentation included:
· This body acts in an advisory capacity as the Planning Commission, but (acting simultaneously as the MPO) is the final decision-making body for activities in the MPO boundaries.
· The Commission’s current By-Laws do not address its MPO functions. The Commission may want to consider adopting MPO By-Laws, as well as developing By-Laws for the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
· The MPO and TAC need to meet regularly as independent bodies, with each other and with the State to identify and discuss regional transportation planning issues and to give staff guidance about how community transportation issues are to be addressed.
· The MPO boundary should be reviewed with each census (every 10 years) or more frequently if substantial growth occurs.
· Transportation planning documents should address all modes of transportation, as well as land use, environmental and social impacts.
· The MPO system has changed over the years as the national focus changed from new construction to preservation. The MPO has been incrementally granted additional decision-making powers and has been asked to get more involved in regional transportation planning issues.
There was extended discussion about the MPO’s ability and authority to drive specific projects. Mr. Skelly explained that the MPO was given the final say in approving or vetoing projects proposed for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). However, the MPO has no authority to initiate the projects themselves. New proposals may be brought forward only by a government agency (City Commission, County Commission or State). This apparent lack of power is one reason behind the restructuring of many MPO’s to involve elected offcials in the MPO processes and decisions.
Mr. Skelly said he would provide Staff with a brief video about MPO’s that would be available upon request.
PC Meeting 05/23/05
ITEM NO. 5A: A TO PRD-2; 10.281 ACRES; NORTH OF OVERLAND DRIVE BETWEEN MONTEREY WAY AND ELDRIDGE STREET (LAP)
Z-04-22-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 10.281 acres from A (Agricultural) District to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Overland Drive between Monterey Way and Eldridge Street. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for Fairway, L.C., contract purchaser, and Gary Grob, property owner of record.
PC Meeting 05/23/05
ITEM NO. 5B: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR DOOLITTLE SUBDIVISION; EAST OF SEELE WAY, NORTH OF OVERLAND DRIVE, SOUTH OF TRAIL ROAD BETWEEN ELDRIDGE STREET & MONTEREY WAY (LAP)
PDP-04-03-05: Preliminary Development Plan for Doolittle Subdivision. This proposed residential subdivision contains approximately 10.3 acres. The property is generally described as being located east of Seele Way, north of Overland Drive, south of Trail Road between Eldridge Street and Monterey Way. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for Fairway, L.C., contract purchaser, and Gary Grob, property owner of record.
Items 5A & 5B were deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO 6: A TO A-1; 8 ACRES; 1620 E 652 ROAD (SLD)
Z-04-25-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 8 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at 1620 E 652 Road. Submitted by Tyler and Terri Stewart, property owners of record.
The Commission agreed unanimously to consider the item on Wednesday when it was found that the notice letters sent to the public identified this item as a May 25th agenda item.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day explained the applicant’s request for A-1 zoning to allow construction of a single-family residence. She said the applicant understood he would need to plat the property in order to build the proposed home.
It was recognized that the subject property did not meet the rural subdivision contiguity criteria because there was one parcel between the subject land and the nearest platted property. It was noted that several homes existed in the area, although not all of them were platted.
Ms. Day said the County Zoning office was looking into the status of the private road adjacent to the subject property. It was possible that a resolution would be found that would allow the applicant to take access from that private road. Ms. Day said Staff would prefer this option if it proved possible.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Tyler Stewart, applicant, explained that he would like to retain and utilize the existing shared driveway to his property but would be willing to construct a new driveway if it was required.
PUBLIC HEARING
Alan Black spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters. Mr. Black referenced previous cases similar to this request, where development was requested that did not meet the criteria for rural subdivision, specifically the requirement for contiguity to an existing platted subdivision.
Mr. Black discussed the League’s continued concern about ‘random’ development in the UGA and said that this request was another example of how that development occurred.
Burress acknowledged that the Commission did not currently have a good policy for managing rural growth. However, he asked if the League would be able to support this request as a reasonable location for a single-family home. Mr. Black said the subject property was located close to other residential development, but he had not looked at the site specifically so he could not say whether the League could support this request or not.
APPLICANT CLOSING
Mr. Stewart pointed out that the subject property “is not in the middle of a field.” He said the property was surrounded by existing residences, but these homes were not on platted land.
STAFF CLOSING
Staff had no additional comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Eichhorn expressed concern that the applicant would be able to use the existing shared access drive when he had not taken (financial) part in constructing it. Mr. Stewart replied that he did own part of the drive, but was told he might have to construct a separate drive, even if it was only 6” away from the existing shared drive. He said he would rather not make this additional access.
It was verified that a water meter and septic system were readily available for the subject property.
Burress asked to verify for the record that, in its current state, the property could be developed with only one home. Further division to accommodate additional houses was hampered primarily by access (i.e. a lack of adequate road frontage).
Burress said he would support this project even though he was generally opposed to unregulated growth in the UGA, because he though that reasonable regulations would allow it to occur. He stated again that the County did not have reasonable regulations at this time.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Jennings to approve the rezoning of 8 acres from A to A-1 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning resolution.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
PC Meeting 05/23/05
ITEM NO 7A: RS-2 TO PRD-1; 12.495 ACRES; SOUTH OF PETERSON ROAD AND WEST OF MONTEREY WAY (SLD)
Z-04-26-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 12.495 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District to PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development) District. The property is generally described as being located south of Peterson Road and west of Monterey Way. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Jeffrey E. Smith Homes, L.C., property owner of record.
PC Meeting 05/23/05
ITEM NO 7B: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPRING HILL NO. 2; SOUTH OF PETERSON ROAD AND WEST OF MONTEREY WAY (SLD)
PP-04-06-05: Preliminary Plat for Spring Hill No. 2. This proposed 23-lot single-family and one-lot multiple-family residential subdivision contains approximately 19.299 acres. The property is generally described as being located south of Peterson Road and west of Monterey Way. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Jeffrey E. Smith Homes, L.C., property owner of record.)
Items 7A & 7B were deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Meeting 05/23/05
ITEM NO 8: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CELL TOWER CO-LOCATION; 1802 SOUTH ARMSTRONG ROAD (SLD)
CUP-04-04-05: Conditional Use Permit for cell tower co-location. The tower and enclosure area is located north of Armstrong Road and east of Crown Chevrolet/Toyota, and contains approximately .1 acre of a 3.2 acre parcel. Submitted by Site Selective Consultants, Inc., for Cingular Wireless, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day explained that this request involved an existing tower of less than 200’. Staff had not had an opportunity to see if the original tower approval addressed lighting restrictions.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
The applicant was not present. Chairman Haase suggested that this item should have been an administrative review. Staff indicated that the Zoning Administrator had determined that expansion of the ground level enclosure was not within the policy limits for administrative action.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional comments or concerns.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the cell tower co-location at 1802 S. Armstrong Road and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:
1. Provision of a note stating, “No lighting shall be permitted on the tower except as required by the FAA.”
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
PC Meeting 05/23/05
MISC. ITEM NO. 1: OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
PC Meeting 05/23/05
MISC. ITEM NO. 2: BY-LAW AMENDMENTS
Consider initiation of revisions to Planning Commission By-Laws to reflect changes in meeting schedule/format.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Finger explained revisions requested by Krebs after the May Mid-Month meeting were incorporated where possible into the revised draft. Requests from Burress were presented for discussion along with Staff’s comments and questions to Burress’ proposed changes.
The Commission was asked to receive the document, recommend changes (if any) and initiate the amendments for consideration in June 2005.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed and came to a majority agreement on the changes proposed in Burress’ communication, as well as other suggestions made during discussion:
1. Meeting extensions
The Commission agreed to language allowing one, 1-hour extension. Subsequent extensions were possible only with a supermajority vote of the full Commission (7 members).
2. Questions in advance for items on the first agenda
It was clarified that the text proposed by Staff was meant to provide Staff with adequate time to prepare responses to Commission questions. This did not preclude the Commission from asking additional questions of Staff during the meeting. Staff was directed to clarify this intent.
3a. & 3b. Committee and subcommittee appointments at the sole discretion of the Chair
There was extensive discussion about this issue, establishing that most Commissioners did not feel the current policy was or had been a problem in the past. Burress said he had felt this was an issue at one point, and he felt it was generally good policy to provide an opportunity for the other Commissioners to have a say in the appointment process if they chose.
Countering this stance, some Commissioners were concerned the proposed change would be divisive, inefficient and create a negative and/or unnecessarily political environment. It was discussed that most committee appointments were made according to who had available time and a willingness to take part.
By straw poll, the Commission agreed not to revise these sections as suggested.
4. Ambiguity of ex parte communication restrictions
There was extensive discussion on this issue as well. Burress explained he was frequently approached about issues that he felt were not open for discussion according to the ex parte restrictions, and he wanted to make sure everyone understood and followed these restrictions uniformly.
Two kinds of situations were identified: (1) Cases in which specific parcels were involved, no request was before the Planning Commission, but one might present itself in the future; and (2) Cases that had been dealt with by the Governing Body and/or had received a building permit, but might return before the Planning Commission in the future.
Several points were made:
It is difficult to discuss some general policy issues without concrete examples to draw from.
The Commission directed Staff to develop language stating that the ex parte restriction was terminated once the governing body made its final determination.
5. Written policy on the number and length of Commissioner terms, considering impact of partial terms. Not a By-Law consideration.
The Commission generally agreed that it would be a good idea to have a formal policy outlining the number of terms a Commissioner was allowed to serve and how this was impacted by any partial terms served. It was suggested without objection that two full 3-year terms was an appropriate limit, but that partial terms should not be included in this calculation.
It was noted that the Planning Commission had no authority to amend the City Resolution dealing with Planning Commission appointments. However, the Planning Commission could forward a resolution asking the City and County Commissions to address this omission in their respective regulations, as well as providing recommended language for the requested amendments.
6. Use of abstentions as a voting stance. Not a By-law consideration.
Ms. Finger said she had been asked to communicate County Commissioner McElhaney’s disappointment when Commissioners abstained from the vote on a particular item. He had asked Staff to state his opinion that the Planning Commission was appointed to give an opinion and an abstention was not an adequate opinion.
Angino said it was his own decision to make, whether he would abstain from an item. Burress said that sometimes abstaining was the only way to effectively express his opinion about an item.
7. Meeting times
The Commission discussed and ultimately agreed to direct Staff to revise the by-laws to reflect the following meeting times:
8. Rules of procedure
Staff was directed to verify that all necessary elements of the second meeting were included in the written procedure, including a second solicitation for ex parte communications and abstentions and a consideration of any deferral requests received after the Study Session.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Eichhorn to initiate amendments as discussed to the Planning Commission By-Laws and schedule a public hearing for June 2005.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
PC Meeting 05/23/05
MISC. ITEM NO. 3: OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Finger explained that Staff had received numerous complaints about the confusion created by holding the Study Session and the Monday agenda meeting in the same room, immediately following one another. Staff strongly recommended moving the Study Session to another location.
Commissioners commented that those with hearing problems would have more difficulty with holding Study Session in other rooms and that combining the Study Session with meals in the past had been a notably inefficient use of time.
The Commission agreed to try a different meeting space for the Study Session, at a location to be determined by Staff.
Recess – 9:35 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Planning Commission Agenda Meeting
May 23 & 25, 2005
Minutes DRAFT
_______________________________________________________________________
Reconvene at 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Jennings, Krebs, Riordan and Lawson
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Patterson, Pool, Day, Guntert, Arhens and Saker
_______________________________________________________________________
AGENDA
Staff brought the Commission’s attention to the revised agenda, which added Item 16D for consideration along with Items16A-16C.
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 14 – HORIZON 2020 Chapter 8 – Transportation Amendments
Items 16A-16C – Rezonings northwest of Clinton Parkway and Highway K-10
Item 16D – Annexation northwest of Clinton Parkway & Highway K-10
General
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRALS
The Commission dealt with Item 6 at this point in the agenda.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO. 9A: A TO RM-D; 20.388 ACRES; NORTH OF W. SIXTH STREET AND WEST OF QUEENS ROAD (PGP)
Z-04-23-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 20.388 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RM-D (Duplex-Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of W. Sixth Street, west of Queens Road. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for Fairway, LC., contract purchaser, and John D. Peterson representing Turner-Douglas L.L.C. et. al., property owners of record.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO. 9B: A TO RS-2; 20.380 ACRES; NORTH OF W. SIXTH STREET AND WEST OF QUEENS ROAD (PGP)
Z-04-24-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 20.380 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of W. Sixth Street, west of Queens Road. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for Fairway, LC., contract purchaser, and John D. Peterson representing Turner-Douglas L.L.C. et. al., property owners of record.
Items 9A & 9B were deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO 10A: A TO RS-2; 3.973 ACRES; SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WAKARUSA DRIVE AND EISENHOWER DRIVE (LAP)
Z-04-27-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 3.973 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of Wakarusa Drive and Eisenhower Drive. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for Glenwood, L.C., property owner of record.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO 10B: A TO RM-1; 11.165 ACRES; WEST OF WAKARUSA DRIVE AND EAST OF EISENHOWER DRIVE (LAP)
Z-04-28-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 11.165 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located west of Wakarusa Drive and east of Eisenhower Drive. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for Glenwood, L.C., property owner of record.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO 10C: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GLENWOOD ADDITION; WEST OF WAKARUSA DRIVE AND EAST OF EISENHOWER DRIVE (LAP)
PP-04-07-05: Preliminary Plat for Glenwood Addition. This proposed 14-lot single-family residential and one-lot multiple-family residential subdivision contains approximately 12.605 acres. The property is generally described as being located west of Wakarusa Drive and east of Eisenhower Drive. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for Glenwood, L.C., property owner of record.
Items 10A – 10C were deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO 11: CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR 2006-2011 (DRG)
Hold public hearing on Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for years 2006-2011.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Guntert explained the Commission was presented with a full report of all projects submitted by the public and various City Departments for the 2006-2011 CIP. About 50 projects from the Water and Wastewater Master Plans were scheduled beyond the 2011 time period but included in the CIP for informational purposes.
Mr. Guntert said the Commission was asked to hold a public hearing and then consider the conformance of the CIP projects individually and as a whole for their conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. He responded to questioning that the public was encouraged to comment on the conformance and/or merits of any project.
Staff described how the City Commission used the CIP in concert with the CIP budget. The Planning Commission was presented with a memo explaining a 3-tier system defining a range of projects that could be accomplished under the current mill levy as well as under various mill levy increases.
It was established that the City Commission had the final decision about which projects would be funded, but the Planning Commission could make recommendations about projects they felt should be given more or less priority.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff was asked to explain the difference between the two Peterson Road projects, #32 & #63. Mr. Guntert said #32 involved the improvement of an existing section of Peterson Road from Martin Park to Folks Road. Item #63 was for the future construction of an as-yet unidentified route for extending Peterson Road. This was in response to the identification of a need to provide a major east-west connection north of 6th Street.
Staff responded to questioning that the Planning Commission could recommend Item #32 be moved up in the CIP budget from its current placement in 2011. However, moving any project up must acknowledge that other projects would have to move down.
Haase suggested that the actual construction of the Peterson Road extension (#63) was appropriately placed in the CIP. The important current issue was designating the alignment of the extension.
Haase asked if anyone found any project not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Burress stated that he had a history of voting against the CIP because the Commission was never provided with adequate data showing that each project was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. He said he had been more involved in the CIP process this year and the system was much improved but still needed work.
It was noted that this year’s CIP included a table identifying which HORIZON 2020 policy was addressed by each project. Burress said this was not adequate. He wanted information on how each project would be a step in achieving a long-range Comprehensive Plan goal.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the 2006-2011 CIP, finding all projects in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried 7-2, with Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Burress & Ermeling voted in opposition.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO 12: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – CHAPTER 11 – HISTORIC RESOURCES (LBZ)
Hold public hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to Chapter 11 – Historic Resources.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Zollner gave a brief presentation on the revised Historic Preservation chapter for HORIZON 2020, including why the Historic Resources Plan was created and what role it plays in identifying and protecting historic resources. The original chapter was 4 pages long, so this chapter provides a good deal more in the way of direction and guidance for preservation efforts.
The proposed chapter is an Executive Summary of the Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan adopted previously by the City Commission and Historic Resources Commission. Several sections of the chapter were identified at Study Session where text changes would be required because some of the formatting in the document did not transcribe clearly into the format of the Comprehensive Plan.
Burress asked why the Blackjack Battlefield was not mentioned specifically in the goals and policies of the chapter. He said this area was the “most important civil war battlefield in the nation”, suggesting it should be a national monument and/or park. He said this would require high-level political backing and putting the battlefield in the Comprehensive Plan was one way to draw needed attention to the area.
Ms. Zollner said the intent of the chapter was not to name specific locations but to talk about identifying resources and protection needs, and nominating areas and structures to a register. She noted that the Blackjack Battlefield was already listed on the National Register and one amendment had been done already, adding acreage to the original listing. Staff said it would not be inconsistent to add a specific mention of the area to the goals and strategies of the chapter.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Lawson said the chapter had a number of supportable elements, but he would vote in opposition because he felt many of the principles of historic preservation unfairly infringed on the property rights of those around the historic property. He stated for the record that the environs issue was a “burdensome assault” on neighboring properties.
Burress described the issue further, saying preservation raised a conflict of property rights. Without preservation regulations, a property owner had a right to do something on his own land that reduced the value of the historic property. With preservation laws in place, this situation was reversed. He said he would support the chapter because preservation efforts resulted in a higher total maximum value for the community as a whole.
Lawson said another concern he had with the chapter was that he had a hard time seeing how some of the policies related to preservation. He referenced Policies 2.3a & b, as well as Policy 2.4b as examples. There was discussion about why these policies, which related to rural development and the 5-acre exemption, were appropriate in the historic preservation chapter. Haase said that rural development was currently unregulated and unpredictable. Without regulation in place, development could occur using the 5-acre exemption that would infringe on areas like the Blackjack Battlefield, reducing their value for generations to come.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Ermeling to approve the amendment to Chapter 11 (Historic Resources), of the Comprehensive Plan and forward it to the City Commission and the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, subject the following condition:
1. Staff shall develop and add a policy under Goal 4 identifying the Black Jack Battlefield as an area of historic significance and outlining steps to bring the area to national attention as an important part of Civil War tourism.
Motion carried 8-1, with Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Jennings, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor. Lawson voted in opposition.
5-minute recess
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO 13: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – CHAPTER 9 – PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACES (PGP)
Hold public hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to Horizon 2020, Chapter 9 – Parks, Recreation, and Open Space.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson explained the Parks & Recreation ad hoc committee had been working to create the draft chapter presented tonight. This draft has been posted on the Planning Department website for public review and was presented tonight with a Staff Recommendation for approval.
Mr. Patterson referenced the accompanying documents, including a list of recommended revisions to the chapter and a set of proposed Implementation Strategies to achieve the goals identified in the chapter.
It was explained that several maps had been prepared to accompany the chapter but were inadvertently left out of the Commission’s information packets. These maps and the text before the Commission tonight would be added from the Parks & Recreation Master Plan. The combined documents would then return to the Commission to consider amending into the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 9.
Fred DeVictor, Director of Parks & Recreation Department, had high praise for the cooperative process used to develop this draft of the Parks & Recreation chapter. He responded to questioning that the park planner mentioned in the proposed chapter would ideally be a designer as well and would facilitate things that currently had to be outsourced to consultants.
PUBLIC HEARING
Bonnie Johnson, Chair of the Parks & Recreation ad hoc committee, said she had been surprised to find that there were maps in the existing Parks & Recreation Master Plan, but these maps were not being used for land use decisions. She said the maps showed future trails, greenways and priority areas where the City was looking for park property. Ms. Johnson anticipated these maps would be of great assistance for planning pedestrian connections and other elements of new subdivisions.
Ms. Johnson said the text could be considered tonight, but the maps were an important part of the chapter and the committee recommended ultimately using the Parks & Recreation Master Plan, amended to include the text presented tonight and the maps described, for land use decisions.
Ms. Johnson responded to questioning that the committee intended for the chapter to make clear the relationship between historic areas and recreational spaces. Burress noted that historic preservation was mentioned in several places, but there were no policies addressing this issue specifically. It was suggested that policies related to historic preservation could be added to Goal 2 (Maintaining and Enhancing Existing Park Areas).
There was discussion about the importance of corridors for transportation, boundaries and wildlife preservation. Ms. Johnson explained the core concept of the plan was to connect the four cornerstone natural areas of the City. It was noted where the multiple roles of corridors was mentioned in the chapter. It was mentioned that Goal 4 covered this topic comprehensively.
It was established that the memo regarding implementation strategies was meant to help when it was time to incorporate the goals of this chapter into the Implementation Strategies chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. It was understood that these strategies were not proposed as part of the chapter being considered tonight.
Mr. Johnson said she had not yet had a chance to review the comments from the League of Women Voters.
Betty Lichtwardt spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters, reading written testimony into the record and providing Staff with a hard copy (See project file). Ms. Lichtwardt asked the Commission to take special notice of the map in the Comprehensive Plan background studies entitled Combined Natural and Environmental Features.
Ms. Lichtwardt responded to questioning that “almost all” of the League’s concerns were addressed in the specific text notations outlined in the League’s previous communication.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Eichhorn commented on the League’s concern that natural areas be maintained in their existing state, pointing out that many natural areas had only minimal vegetation, so maintenance would be simple and inexpensive.
Ermeling said the committee had done a good job, but she thought it unfortunate that mini-parks were being deemphasized. She understood the costs associated with acquiring and maintaining these small areas, but felt they would become increasingly important as development trends moved toward higher density and smaller lots. Ermeling said several landscapers had expressed concern to her that small park areas were being minimized. Mr. DeVictor responded that the standard for neighborhood parks has increased from 1 acre to 5 acres and the Parks Department was focusing on acquiring larger parcels and providing better connectivity between these larger park areas.
Burress revisited the issue of macro-connectivity, saying the chapter outlined connections to the four major recreational areas identified, but did not show how one could reach these areas using any recreational trail or path in the City. Ms. Johnson said planning in that detail was beyond the scope of the committee. They had discussed these issues, but this level of planning would require a large-scale visioning process with significant input from the City and the community.
There was discussion about levels of service. It was noted that this concept is defined in detail in the section on park standards (p.9-4) and is also covered in the Parks & Recreation Master Plan. Staff recommended amending the proposed text into the Master Plan and incorporating by reference the entire (amended) Master Plan as the Parks & Recreation chapter of HORIZON 2020 as had been done with other City Comprehensive Plans. Ms. Finger further recommended that adoption of the Master Plan/chapter be done by reference.
It was established that the maps were delayed because they were being put into a digital format.
The Commission discussed referring the chapter back to the ad hoc committee for further revisions based on tonight’s discussion. They outlined the information the committee was to review for possible incorporation into the document:
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson to refer the Parks, Recreation & Open Space chapter back to the Parks & Recreation ad hoc committee for review and possible modification of the document based on the information outlined previously.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was verified that the motion was not meant as a mandate to include any of the concepts the committee was asked to review. The committee was asked to use their own judgment regarding the merits of each suggestion and make revisions only as they saw fit.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to return the chapter to the Parks & Recreation ad hoc committee for review and revision as described. Burress seconded.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO 14: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – CHAPTER 8 – TRANSPORTATION (WBH)
Hold public hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to Chapter 8 – Transportation.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Ahrens explained the Planning Commission initiated this proposed amendment based on the recommendation of the CPC that the Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan be updated to reflect the content of the current long-range transportation plan, Transportation 2025.
A number of formatting errors were noted at the Study Session and a revised draft of the chapter was provided in tonight’s communications making these changes. Two text changes in Policy 6.4d and 6.1b were not included in the revised version, but proposed revisions were presented by Staff.
Staff recommended approval of the chapter as revised.
Riordan said the proposed new wording of Policy 6.1b did not address the concerns he expressed at the Study Session. It was discussed that areas of high density were more conducive to public transportation and pedestrian/bicycle activity. Riordan said his concern was that the text, as written, appeared to encourage maximum capacity development along arterials, which was not a sound planning principle.
Burress referenced the question raised by the League of Women Voters about connector streets – direct but non-major roads that would allow internal travel between points in the neighborhood. It was discussed that the term “residential collector” was defined in Transportation 2025 but was not used anywhere else in the document. This term was replaced in the proposed chapter with a definition for “connector street” but this term was still not referenced elsewhere in the proposed chapter. Burress suggested adding policies that used the term “connector street” to explain their use and function within neighborhoods.
Haase suggested more specific language should be added to the definition of “residential collector”, stating that one function of these streets is to provide a transportation corridor to special destinations on the perimeter of the neighborhood.
PUBLIC HEARING
Alan Black spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters, reading into the record a written statement outlining the League’s concerns (See file for hard copy). Primary points of the League’s communication were:
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed whether the changes being considered could be finalized at tonight’s meeting, or if the chapter would need to be returned to the CPC.
Ms. Finger pointed out that the intent of the proposed chapter was to implement the concepts that were already adopted in Transportation 2025. She suggested that some of the changes being discussed strayed from that intent and would leave the two documents (HORIZON 2020 and Transportation 2025) still out of sync. It was discussed that the Commission could approve the chapter as presented and keep the issues raised in mind for their long-range transportation plan update, which was due to begin in the near future.
It was discussed that Transportation 2025 contained a map showing three potential east-west arterials north of 6th Street, as approved by the Planning Commission acting in their capacity as the MPO. However, this map did not match the Major Thoroughfares Map in HORIZON 2020, because the City Commission had the final authority over the MTM and had chosen not to show the three potential arterials.
Haase said he would like to include an amendment to the map in the proposed chapter designating a corridor extending from existing Peterson Road to connect with Highway 40 at approximately E700 Road. He said he would further like to see in the plan a potential major arterial extending the full length of the described corridor. Haase said the problem of providing an east-west connection in this area was a prime example of why it is ideal to look at environmental constraints before planning transportation networks.
The Commission discussed whether it was more appropriate to approve the chapter as presented to achieve conformance between two planning documents, or if it the issues raised were significant enough to warrant immediate attention. Lawson pointed out that an update to the long-range transportation plan would provide an opportunity to consider all of the concerns and comments made regarding this chapter. Ms. Finger said it would take 18-24 months to complete the transportation plan updates and the Commission could then initiate chapter revisions to maintain conformity between the chapter and the transportation plan.
Krebs countered that, since the update would take about 2 years to get into place, it would be worthwhile to improve the current chapter for use in the meantime. She added that not using the testimony given in the public hearing was not a good use of feedback.
It was noted that Goal 6 from the original chapter was inadvertently left out of the proposed chapter.
Ms. Finger stated that the map change suggested by Haase could be incorporated into the chapter without returning the documents to the CPC. However, the addition of policy statements about residential collectors as suggested by Burress would require subcommittee review. The chapter would then need to return in the summer or fall, since the June agenda was already quite full. It was verified that the chapter could be acted upon at a Monday meeting but action on this issue at Mid-Month meeting would be inappropriate because Mid-Months were not publicized as a time for consideration of public hearing items.
There was additional discussion about changing the chapter map as described by Haase. It was asked if this was an appropriate change to make tonight. Haase stated it was essential to protect the ability to build a road if it is needed in future. He said the “line on the map” could be removed if it was found to be too impractical at a later date. It was commented that this alignment was already impractical. Haase responded that an east-west connection was needed and this alignment was less impractical than other options.
Krebs noted that the chapter policies did not always appear to address the goals they were listed with.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Riordan, seconded by Burress to refer Chapter 8 (Transportation) of HORIZON 2020 back to the Comprehensive Plans Committee with direction to review the following suggestions for inclusion in the chapter:
Motion carried 7-2, with Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor. Jennings and Lawson voted in opposition.
5-minute recess
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO 15A: 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.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO 15B: 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.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO 15C: 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.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO 15D: 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.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO 15E: 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.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO 15F: 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 15A – 15F were deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO. 16A: A TO RS-2; 8.7 ACRES; NORTHWEST OF CLINTON PARKWAY & K-10 HIGHWAY (SLD)
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). This item was tabled at the 2/23/05 meeting.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO. 16B: A TO RM-2; 40 ACRES; NORTHWEST OF CLONTON PARKWAY AND K-10 HIGHWAY
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). This item was tabled at the 2/23/05 meeting.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO. 16C: A TO RM-D; 4.6 ACRES; NORTHWEST OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND K-10 HIGHWAY
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). This item was tabled at the 2/23/05 meeting.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO. 16D: ANNEXATION OF 54 ACRES; NORTHWEST OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND K-10 HIGHWAY (NORTH OF JUDY’S JUNCTION) (SLD)
A-01-01-05: Annexation request for approximately 54 acres, located northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction). Submitted by Bob Voth for Windover Community at Lawrence, LLC, property owners of record. The Commission considered this item at the 2/23/05 meeting, and forwarded it to the City Commission with no recommendation.
Items 16A – 16D were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day reminded the Commission that they considered these items in February, tabling the rezonings and forwarding the annexation to the City Commission with no recommendation. The City Commission returned the annexation to the Planning Commission with specific direction to provide a recommendation. The Planning Commission was provided with the original Staff Reports and the minutes from previous discussions of the annexation and the three related rezoning requests.
Staff said the City Commission had been clear about their wish to have an area plan for the overall area before making finite land use decisions. Ms. Finger noted that this would actually involve a basin or sub-basin plan. The City Commission had also expressed concern about timing and extension of utilities, although it was acknowledged that services were not as far from this area as they had been when the development was initially discussed with Staff.
The applicant had indicated a wish to continue with the applications as presented. Staff’s position had not changed on any of the requests.
It was established that it would be approximately a year before Staff would be available to begin the watershed basin plan for this area. In response to Commission direction in February, Staff had discussed with the applicant the possibility of privately funding an outside consultant to do the basin plan. The applicant had been receptive to this idea, but the City Commission was concerned about one individual paying for a study that would benefit many landowners and may be inconclusive or negatively impact the applicant’s proposal. It was further noted that hiring a consultant did not completely remove the burden from Planning Staff because the consultant would require many hours of background research and public involvement assistance from Staff. Hiring additional, temporary staff members (even at the applicant’s cost) to assist in these tasks would require extra training and supervision.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mark White spoke on behalf of the applicant, explaining the applicant’s wish to pursue the annexation request. He said the rezonings might be withdrawn rather than triggering the 12-month waiting period for resubmittal if denied.
Mr. White said the request was consistent with the HORZION 2020 policy of encouraging voluntary annexation. He added that the subject area was adjacent to the City boundaries and that services could be brought easily to this site. Eichhorn questioned this statement, verifying that the applicant was aware that services did not exist on that side of the road.
Mr. White said the applicant understood the conflicts facing this project (service delivery, delays in developing an area plan), but would like to continue his cooperative working relationship with the City. Mr. White said a number of area land owners had expressed interest in taking part in the needed basin study, and the applicant asked that the study be “put in line” to occur as soon as possible.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was clarified that there was no submittal fee and no time restriction on resubmittal of requests for annexation if this one were denied.
It was discussed that the development code required a City zoning designation be given to newly incorporated land upon annexation. This regulation had been bypassed on several occasions, allowing incorporated land to retain its County zoning designation for years, but this confusing practice was discouraged.
Ms. Finger commented that the City Commission had directed the Legal Department to collect information on the possible annexation of all land with Service Area 1 of the UGA. The subject property was located in Services Areas 3A & 3B.
Riordan suggested that the City Commission’s return of the annexation seemed to indicate that they (City Commission) were not interested in pursuing any kind of negotiations with this development. He said this did not reflect on the quality of the proposed project, but on the timing – the City was not able to approve this project at this time.
Burress spoke about the need for advance planning of inexpensive land to provide a place for significant amounts of moderate-income housing. He regretted that the City was not able to work with the applicant, who had expressed willingness to help finance the needed basin plan, and the Planning Commission would likely have to deny the requests. It was recognized that low-cost land (outside the current development area) was not the only factor in being able to provide moderate-cost housing. It was noted that few developers pursued this type of development because the community continued to absorb new premium housing projects.
Lawson stated as a side note that one of the blockages to this proposal was the lack of Staff time to complete the basin study. He suggested that the Commission keep this situation in mind when new research projects, etc. were assigned to Staff, saying it may be that the “mundane tasks we ask them to do are blocking other important issues.”
Staff noted that the new Development Code, when adopted, would provide several new rezoning options, including a “holding category” that would address some of the issues facing this proposal.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 16D
Motioned by Riordan, seconded by Eichhorn to deny the annexation of 54 acres northwest of Clinton Parkway & Highway K-10 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Item 16A
Motioned by Riordan, seconded by Eichhorn to deny the rezoning of 8.7 acres from A to RS-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously 9-0.
Item 16B
Motioned by Riordan, seconded by Eichhorn to deny the rezoning of 40 acres from A to RM-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously 9-0.
Item 16C
Motioned by Riordan, seconded by Eichhorn to deny the rezoning of 4.6 acres from A to RM-D and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously 9-0.
MISCELLANEOUS
Ms. Finger said the June agenda was posted on the Planning Department website for viewing. She suggested the Commission allot themselves extra time to review their packet information, as there were over 30 items on the June agenda.
ADJOURN – 9:35 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.