Planning Commission Agenda Meeting
August 22 & 24, 2005
Meeting Minutes
_____________________________________________________________________________
August 22, 2005 – 7:05 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs, Jennings, Lawson, Riordan and Student Commissioner Wright
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Day, Patterson, Pool, Miller and Saker
_____________________________________________________________________________
MINUTES
It was noted that not all Commissioners had received the electronic version of the minutes distributed after packets and that paper copies were to be distributed with packets. The Commission agreed to defer consideration of the July 2005 meeting minutes to the Wednesday meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
CPC: Met to discuss revisiting the Southeast Area Plan. Meetings have been scheduled with both the City and County Commissions to gather input from those bodies regarding their objections to the Southeast Area Plan and to receive their suggestions for the new East Area plan.
T2030: Met to outline the steps needed to complete the Transportation 2025 plan (T2025) update due by September 2007. Questions were raised about the transportation visioning process and where it fit in this update process. Its importance as a connection between transportation and land uses was discussed. It was suggested that Staff wait to finalize the RFP selection process for a consultant to do the update visioning for T2025 and the Commission discuss transportation and community visioning at the September Mid-Month meeting.
TAC: Met to hear from KDOT representatives regarding the federal allocation of funds to local entities. There was discussion about KDOT’s assessment of federal funding that may be allocated to the projects on the current TIP.
PCMM: Met with facilitator Carol Nalbandian to discuss the Planning Commission’s process, expectations and objectives. The Commission did not reach the Goal Setting portion of this agenda and will continue with this issue at their next retreat.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Finger outlined the following communications:
ITEM 1: Final Plat for Sherylville Estates
ITEM 4: FDP for Hutton Farms West
ITEM 7: Revised PDP for Mt. Blue Addition #3
General
ITEMS 10, 11, 13A & 13B
ITEMS 15A – 15C: Zonings and Preliminary Plat for Mary’s Lake
ITEMS 16A – 16B: Zoning and Preliminary Plat for Doolittle Subdivision
ITEM 18: Text Amendment to Chapter 21
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUESTS
· Erickson and Ermeling were present after a Community Development Committee meeting when Staff joined a discussion with representatives of the Bauer Farms project. Both Commissioners left when discussion moved toward project specifics.
· No abstentions were indicated
· There were no deferral requests to be considered.
· Item 5 was pulled from the Consent Agenda
· The remainder of the Consent Agenda was approved unanimously.
PC meeting minutes 08/22/05
ITEM NO 1: FINAL PLAT FOR SHERYLVILLE ESTATES; 1600 – 1800 RIVERRIDGE ROAD (MKM)
PF-05-20-05: Final Plat for Sherylville Estates, a Replat of Lot 1, Baker Addition. This proposed 19-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 5.71 acres. The property is generally described as being located between 1600 and 1800 Riverridge Road. Submitted by EBH for Blevco, Inc., contract purchaser, and David A. Blevins, property owner of record. This item was deferred by the applicant from the June and July meeting.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Haase to approve the Final Plat for Sherylville Estates and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights of way, subject to the following conditions:
a. Provide a 10’ utility easement for Westar along the back of Lots 6-11 in Block 1;
b. Revise Planning Commission Chair’s name to Terry Riordan;
c. Minimum elevation of building openings must be shown on Lots 6 and 7; and
d. Revise Note 1 to include this text: “The 10% increase in gross square footage or property value is a single or cumulative increase within an 18 month period.”
“”Prior to the issuance of any building permit on the property in the Final Plat, the applicant shall install sanitary sewer improvements, pursuant to City standards and requirements, required to serve the property and shall escrow funds with the City in an amount equal to the property’s share of the estimated costs of future sewer improvements that will serve the property and the sanitary sewer watershed. The current and future sewer improvements shall be in accordance with the City’s sanitary sewer master plans;”
a. Interior sidewalks within pedestrian easements;
b. Water lines;
c. Sanitary sewers;
d. Streets, curb & gutter profiles including driveway approaches,
e. Sidewalks; and
f. Storm drainage system.
a. Copy of paid property tax receipt;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
c. Provision of a master street tree plan; and
d. Provision of street sign fees.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
PC meeting minutes 08/22/05
ITEM NO 2A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MOON SUBDIVISION; 832 MAPLE STREET (PGP)
PP-06-14-05: Preliminary Plat for Moon Subdivision. The property is generally described as being located at 832 Maple Street. This proposed four-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 0.817 acres. Submitted by BG Consultants for JMC Construction, Inc., property owner of record.
PC Meeting minutes 08/22/05
ITEM NO 2B: FINAL PLAT FOR MOON SUBDIVISION, A REPLAT OF LOT 6 NORTH LAWRENCE ADDITION NO 11; 832 MAPLE STREET (PGP)
PF-06-24-05: Final Plat for Moon Subdivision, a replat of Lot 6, North Lawrence Addition No. 11. The property is generally described as being located at 832 Maple Street. This proposed four-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 0.817 acres. Submitted by BG Consultants for JMC Construction, Inc., property owner of record.
Items 2A & 2B were deferred prior to the meeting.
PC meeting minutes 08/22/05
ITEM NO 3: FINAL PLAT FOR FOX CHASE SOUTH NO. 3; NORTH OF LONGLEAF, SOUTH OF FOX CHASE SOUTH, WEST OF FOX CHASE EAST ADDITION (SLD)
PF-07-25-05: Final Plat for Fox Chase South No. 3. This proposed 98-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 42.532 acres. The property is generally described as being located north of Longleaf Subdivision, south of Fox Chase South, and west of Fox Chase East Addition. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Marla L.L.C, Remco L.C., and Devco, Inc., property owners of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Haase to approve the Final Plat for Fox Chase South No. 3 and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda and with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
PC meeting minutes 08/22/05
ITEM NO 4: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HUTTON FARMS WEST; NORTH OF PETERSON ROAD, EAST OF MONTEREY WAY (EXTENDED) (SLD)
FDP-06-07-05: Final Development Plan request for Hutton Farms West. This proposed single-family and multiple-family residential development contains approximately 38.423 acres. The property is generally described as being located north of Peterson Road and east of Monterey Way (extended). Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, L.L.C., for North Forty L.C., property owner of record. This item was deferred from the July Planning Commission meeting.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Haase to approve the Final Development Plan for Hutton Farms West, subject to the following conditions and including the use of a building footprint table in lieu of showing actual individual footprints for each lot and subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda and with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
PC meeting minutes 08/22/05
ITEM NO 5: REVISED FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR WAKARUSA CROSSROADS; SOUTHWEST CORNER OF W. 6TH STREET AND WAKARUSA DRIVE (SLD)
FDP-07-09-05: Revised Final Development Plan for Wakarusa Crossroads. The existing retail commercial development contains approximately 229,441 gross square feet and is located at the southwest corner of W. 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive. The proposed plan includes a new 4,500 square foot pad site and revisions to the parking lot. Submitted by Greg DiVilbiss for Bristol Groupe, property owner of record.
Item 5 was pulled from the Consent Agenda.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day explained that phased projects in this development area have been impacted greatly by improvements to W. 6th Street. The applicant had spoken with Staff several times about the impact to this property when the existing 6th Street access was closed. With this change, the applicant now proposed to put back into the development plan a commercial pad site that was shown on an earlier plan but was not on the most recent revised plan.
Staff recommended approval of the request with conditions as stated in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Phillip DiVilbiss spoke on behalf of the applicants, saying the restaurant pad site was removed from the development plan to reserve parking that might be needed for other uses and to “clean up” the lot. He said a ¾-acre section of the property was made “unusable” by the loss of access to W. 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive and the applicant wished to add a smaller (reduced by 600 square feet) commercial pad site for an “income-producing use.” He noted that an additional section of property had been purchased behind Congressional Drive for additional parking.
Mr. DiVilbiss spoke about the kinds of uses that would not be considered for the new pad site, including uses that copied or would compromise existing businesses in the development (sports bar, pizza parlor, tobacco shops, used media, sexually oriented businesses, etc.).
Mr. DiVilbiss discussed the negative impact on the shopping center created by the W. 6th Street improvements and responded to questioning that this request stemmed from the applicant’s clearer understanding of how the access changes would affect the center.
There was extensive discussion about the 6th & Wakarusa Area Plan, particularly regarding restrictions placed on the allowable amount of commercial square footage for the south side, the northwest corner and the northeast corner, as well as for the entire node. Considerable concern was expressed about having to take square footage out of the allowance for another corner if this pad site (and additional square footage) was approved. Additionally, concern was expressed that the amount of approved square footage for the entire node already exceeded the allowable total in HORIZON 2020.
There was reference made to the May 2004 Planning Commission minutes in which it was established that square footage above the approved size of any Final Development Plan may be permitted as long as the increase is not significant (within a certain percentage). The nodal plan did not specifically address how to handle this possible increase in square footage.
Staff provided data on the estimated amount of allowed, built and approved but unconstructed commercial retail square footage on each corner/side and for the entire node.
Ms. Day cautioned the Commission that several disconnects may exist between development plan numbers, area plan information, and GIS data. Extensive research and field work is needed to establish precise square footages of commercial retail space vs. “plain” commercial space. Also a number of factors must be weighed into consideration, including:
Mr. DiVilbiss said the applicant was given the right to develop the proposed pad site when the previous Development Plan was approved with the pad site in place. He said the applicant should not be penalized now for not building to full capacity at that time and noted that the proposed pad site was smaller that had been approved in the past. Mr. DiVilbiss responded to questioning that the applicant had not objected strongly to losing the pad site on later development plans because it was thought the development would retain a right-in/right-out access point on W. 6th Street. Since access had been revised, the applicant felt it would be in everyone’s best interest to fill the land with an income producing unit, instead of leaving the existing access road leading to no where. He said the City rejected their offer to vacate the defunct accessway, which would have left the land to City maintenance.
The Commission expressed concern that allowing the pad site with the understanding that it would be filled with a non-retail commercial use was problematic because different uses may take over the space in the future. Staff responded to questioning that tracking a restricted percentage of commercial retail uses would be possible but would be extremely challenging and time-consuming.
Haase said he did not think the intent of the nodal plan was to split hairs over specific types of commercial uses. Staff said this distinction was created at the Planning Commission’s direction in Chapter 6 of HORIZON 2020. Staff did not support the broad categorization of commercial uses, but if that was the direction the Commission wanted to pursue now, they needed to communicate that to Staff, because consultants were currently working on the Retail Market database update that was needed to continue retail use tracking as required in Chapter 6 of HORIZON 2020.
There was discussion about the kinds of data the consultants would bring forward and how this could be used in future considerations.
Haase stated his understanding that none of this information had been presented during the May 2004 consideration and that the Commission had clearly stated “no more” commercial development would be allowed at this node. He disagreed with a previous statement that the pad site had been part of this development plan when the area plan numbers were established and therefore was included in calculations of ‘already approved’ square footage.
Staff, in response to questioning, said they would not recommend deferral, feeling that no additional information could be brought forward that would directly bear on the issue at hand – whether the proposed pad site was allowable and appropriate under the commercial retail square footage limitations set by the nodal plan.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. DiVilbiss countered Haase’s statement, saying the pad site was on the development plan when area plan calculations were done.
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Jennings said anyone who makes long-range plans must be prepared to adjust these plans daily. He pointed out that the denial of this request would result in a significant piece of land that would generate no sales taxes, no jobs and no greenspace. He said it would make more sense to allow build-out of this area and make adjustments where no approvals were in place. Haase responded that this was not possible because the land at this node was already completely allocated.
Haase referred to previous statements by KDOT officials that, based on approved development to date, the 6th Street corridor faced serious transportation issues. He said these issues would only be increased by allowing additional development at this node. He also stated that the amount of allowable commercial space (440,000 square feet) was beyond the indications of good planning, and 200,000 square feet of commercial space would have been more appropriate for this node.
Burress discussed the economic impacts of new retail development. He said it was true a new retail space would generate tax dollars and jobs, but the City could support a finite amount of retail and there came a point where new businesses took these elements (tax generation and jobs) away from existing uses. Eventually it became more expensive to allow expanding retail when there was already too much in place.
Burress suggested the best course would be to create a mechanism for trading development rights between property owners to allow completion of development on the south side.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Burress to deny the revised Final Development Plan for Wakarusa Crossroads and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial, based on the following findings:
1. The proposal is not in conformance with the approved 6th & Wakarusa Area Plan;
2. The amount of commercial retail square footage approved for the south side of Wakarusa Drive already exceeds the amount allowed by the 6th & Wakarusa Area Plan; and
3. Based on findings 1 & 2, it would not be reasonable or appropriate to allow additional commercial retail square footage.
Motion carried 8-2, with Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor. Jennings and Lawson voted in opposition and Student Commissioner Wright voted in favor.
PC meeting minutes 08/22/05
ITEM NO 6A: PRD-2 TO POD-1; 2.59 ACRES; NORTHEAST CORNER OF W. 6TH STREET & WAKARUSA 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 & east of Wakarusa Drive (Bauer Farm). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Free State Holdings, Inc., property owner of record. The Planning Commission deferred this at their 4/27/05 meeting.
PC meeting minutes 08/22/05
ITEM NO 6B: PRD-2 TO PCD-2; 8.23 ACRES; NORTHEAST CORNER OF W. 6TH STREET & WAKARUSA 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 Commercial Development) District. The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6th Street & east of Wakarusa Drive (Bauer Farm). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Free State Holdings, Inc., property owner of record. The Planning Commission deferred this at their 4/27/05 meeting.
PC meeting minutes 08/22/05
ITEM NO 6C: PCD-2 TO PCD-2; 18.938 ACRES; NORTHEAST CORNER OF W. 6TH STREET & WAKARUSA DRIVE (PGP)
Z-07-48-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 18.938 acres from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District to revise use restrictions. The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6th Street & east of Wakarusa Drive (Bauer Farm). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Free State Holdings, Inc., property owner of record.
PC meeting minutes 08/22/05
ITEM NO 6D: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BAUER FARM; NORTHEAST CORNER OF W. 6TH STREET & WAKARUSA DRIVE (PGP)
PDP-03-02-05: Preliminary Development Plan for Bauer Farm. This proposed planned commercial 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., property owner of record. The Planning Commission deferred this at their 4/27/05 meeting.
Items 6A – 6D were deferred prior to the meeting.
Swearing in of speakers
PC meeting minutes 08/22/05 and 08/24/05
ITEM NO 7: REVISED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MT. BLUE ADDITION NO. 3; SOUTH OF K-10 HWY & EAST OF FRANKLIN ROAD (SLD)
PDP-07-06-05: Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Mt. Blue Addition No. 3. This proposed planned industrial development contains approximately 4.25 acres. The property is generally described as being located south of K-10 Highway and east of Franklin Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Mt. Blue, LC, BlueJacket Ford LLC, George F. Paley and Steve T. Abbott, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day explained this was a request for a revised Preliminary Development Plan, but the only section being modified belonged to one property owner, Dean Penny. Complications were raised when Staff recommended placing conditions on the overall plan for the applicant as some impacted other property owners. These recommendations stemmed from City Staff’s intent to forecast to existing and future property owners changes that would come with the Franklin Road & E. 23rd Street interchange improvements. Specifically, the existing access points at Thomas Court would need to be modified and, as a result, a southern connection was recommended to be extended between Thomas Court and 25th Street.
The full impact of interchange improvements at Franklin Road is not yet known. The applicant and associated property owners were not being asked to dedicate additional right-of-way with this plan (which also serves as a revised Preliminary Plat). However, staff was recommending as a condition, revising the development plan to show where right-of-way would be dedicated in the future and to require dedication of this north-south section as a public access easement. The reasoning for this recommendation was to give the applicant maximum flexibility for locating buildings and parking areas within the undeveloped portion of the PID.
Ms. Day described the larger planned industrial development and identified the two lots on the north side of Thomas Court that were proposed for a relocating storage facility, and were the focus of this request. More development plan revisions were likely to come forward in the future but were not ready to be included with this request.
Staff noted that several planning documents addressed development on or near this site, including T2025, the K-10 Corridor Study, and a number of surrounding development proposals and draft plans.
It was established that Franklin Road was designated as a collector when the subject property was zoned as a PID. The road had been re-designated as an arterial with the update of T2020 to T2025.
Staff said they had discussed the establishment of an east-west connection on the far eastern boundary of the overall property, but the adjacent owners had not been interested in that option, feeling it was not in their best interest because of the heavy truck traffic related to their use. Staff concurred with their observation that the potential mix of vehicle types was not desirable.
It was noted that applicant’s and representative from Barber Emerson had forwarded to staff a letter raising concerns about the recommended conditions. Director of Legal Services, David Corliss, was present to address those comments at the Commission’s request.
APPLICANT PRRESENTATION
C.L. Maurer, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant, saying the applicant had no objection to recommended conditions 2, 3a & 4c. However, Mr. Penny had no control over the other conditions and felt it was inappropriate to apply conditions to the entire plan when the revisions involved only his two lots.
Mr. Maurer referenced a cul-de-sac (Thomas Court) that was constructed at the applicant’s expense very recently. According to Staff’s recommendation, a portion of this cul-de-sac would be removed and the applicants would be asked to take part in paying for an entirely new road when Franklin Road improvements were made. Mr. Maurer said KDOT had stated they had no funding for the interchange improvements and the access and roadway design issues being brought up today had nothing to do with Mr. Penny’s 2-lot proposal.
Terry Leibold, attorney for Mt. Blue, LC, said his clients agreed with Mr. Maurer’s assessment of the situation. They opposed the conditions that would require them to dedicate a 30’ easement and remove the Thomas Court cul-de-sac when their property was not part of the revised plan request.
Mr. Liebold said his client’s had agreed to let Mr. Penny apply for the revised development plan in order to allow an existing business to expand and relocate to his (Penny’s) property. If conditions as proposed were applied to the revised Development Plan, Mr. Liebold suggested it would “kill the deal” because other property owners would not be willing to meet those conditions. Therefore, Mr. Penny’s lots would remain empty and devalued
It was suggested that the City’s attempt to close the existing access point and force the Mt. Blue owners to take part in a benefit district for a new street without compensation constituted a taking.
Dave Corliss, Director of Legal Services, said the advance planning proposed by staff in this matter would prevent a situation similar to that faced in Item 5 [FDP-07-09-05]. In both cases a phased development faced impacts as a result of access changes, but in this case the development was in its beginning stages even though a road and a Preliminary Development Plan were in place.
Mr. Corliss said State law gave the City authority to require exactions for Franklin Road under its new designation as an arterial street. As part of that design, the City could also condition revised access, i.e. closing the existing Thomas Court in favor of a more appropriately placed access point. Mr. Corliss said Mr. Liebold’s comments about requiring changes from property owners that were not before the Commission tonight were appropriate from an advocacy standpoint. It was correct that the Commission did not usually make requirements of property owners who were not part of the request. He said it was also true that the subject property (Penny’s two lots) did not abut the land where easement dedications were recommended. However, the Commission did have the legal ability to require the changes proposed to the overall development plan and, in legal staff’s opinion, it would not be unreasonable to do so.
Mr. Corliss repeated that the proposed conditions did not require dedication of right-of-way at this time, only an easement indicating the likelihood of revised access in the future. It was suggested that it would be adequate to require a note on the plan instead.
COMMISSION QUESTIONS
Burress asked for clarification on legal staff’s opinion that the proposed conditions did not constitute a taking, noting again that the conditions would put substantial demands on property owners not involved in this request. Mr. Corliss said State law gave the Commission the ability to require certain off-site improvements in order to develop.
Mr. Corliss responded to questioning that the Commission could approve the revised plan now without the 30’ easement but with the stated understanding that access would be changing at a later date. It was not known if this option was amenable to the applicant or the other property owners.
Lawson asked if it would not be a taking when/if the City removed access at Thomas Court if the adjacent property owners refused to dedicate the right-of-way needed for a new access road (creating a land-locked parcel). It was clarified that these dedications and improvements would be exacted when the adjacent properties came in for redevelopment.
Jennings said it appeared the most valuable lots in this development would be made the least valuable after road improvements and asked who paid for the devaluation of property. Mr. Corliss replied that State law said public improvements were not compensable as long as the property was left with reasonable access. Compensation would be given for right-of-way dedications as usual.
Krebs asked why the existing access at Thomas Court could not be retained. Staff explained this access would be too close to the intersection, even without the planned interchange improvements. It was clarified that Staff did not support the identification of future right-of-way at this point because it was not yet known exactly where this right-of-way would be needed (for Franklin Road and E. 23rd Street). Drawings of the interchange available today were conceptual and it was possible that right-of-way would take part of the two subject lots. It was discussed that there was no process in place to allow the City and KDOT to identify and acquire right-of-way in advance of development proposals.
It was verified that conditioning an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district with this project did not prevent other property owners from doing so.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Krebs suggested it would be reasonable to revise conditions to apply only to Mr. Penny and not bring the other landowners into the issue at this time. There was discussion about what direction to give Staff for drafting revised conditions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Ermeling to table the item and direct staff to draft language as discussed:
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Haase asked if this language would provide adequate leverage to acquire needed easements in the future. He said it would be more appropriate to obtain easements now so the State (taxpayers) would not have to pay for it in the future. It was countered that this applicant had no ability to meet this requirement because the needed easements were not on his property. Haase said this applicant could meet this requirement through negotiations with his partners.
Lawson said he did not support requiring an applicant to incur costs based on a vague future and he favored the motion as proposed as the best compromise. Haase spoke about considering the interests of the public over those of the developer, relating it to the inherent increase in public costs when granting zoning.
There was extensive discussion about requirement options.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to table the item and direct Staff to develop and return language at the Wednesday meeting as outlined above.
Motioned
by Lawson, seconded by Jennings to substitute the motion on the floor with a
motion to approve the revised Preliminary Development Plan for Mt. Blue
Addition No. 3 with revised conditions as follows (shown by strikeout
and underlining and following specific wording suggestions per Staff):
1.
Execution of an agreement not to
protest the formation of a benefit district for future Franklin Road
improvements (to be executed by all property owners within the PID).
2. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to label the top of wall elevations around the detention basin.
3. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that states:
a. “Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be released for building permits 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.”
b.
“The north south access
shall be constructed with the development of Lots 5-8.”
c. “The intersection of Thomas Court and Franklin Road will be rebuilt when intersection improvements are constructed at Franklin Road and K-10 Highway.
4. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to provide:
a.
A minimum 30’ wide public
access easement between the east end of Thomas Court and E. 25th Street including the deed book and page reference on the
face of the document.
a. Future dedication of a 30’ wide public access easement will be required between Thomas Ct & E 25th Street to be developed at which time properties adjacent to easement are brought in for development of Franklin Road is improved;
b.
The location of a future
cul-de-sac bulb shall to be constructed at the western end of Thomas Court when future improvements are made to Franklin Road as shown by notation on a
revised development plan.
c. Provision of a corrected required parking citation to reference parking group 17 requirements.
5. Agreement on the part of the applicant to participate in a future benefit district for improvements to the connection of 25th Street and Thomas Court shall be required for development.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Krebs stated that the substitute motion accomplished her intent and she indicated willingness to withdraw the original motion, but the second was not willing to withdraw and the original motion stood behind the proposed substitute motion.
Student Commissioner Wright left at 9:40 p.m.
Burress said he would like to require the execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district from the other property owners without requiring the 30’ easements at this time.
The motion was called with no objection.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to substitute the original motion with the following:
Approve the revised Preliminary Development Plan for Mt. Blue Addition No.3 with revised conditions:
1. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future Franklin Road improvements;
2. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to label the top of wall elevations around the detention basin;
3. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that states:
a. “Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be released for building permits 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;” and
b. “The intersection of Thomas Court and Franklin Road will be rebuilt when intersection improvements are constructed at Franklin Road and K-10 Highway.
4. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to provide:
a. Future dedication of a 30’ wide public access easement will be required between Thomas Ct & E 25th Street to be developed at which time properties adjacent to easement are brought in for development of Franklin Road is improved;
b. The location of a future cul-de-sac bulb shall be constructed as shown by notation on a revised development plan; and
d. Provision of a corrected required parking citation to reference parking group 17 requirements.
5. Agreement on the part of the applicant to participate in a future benefit district for improvements to the connection of 25th Street and Thomas Court shall be required for development.
Motion failed to carry, 5-5, with Haase, Harris, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Burress, Eichhorn Erickson, Ermeling and Jennings voted in opposition.
Original motion on the floor was to table the item and direct Staff to return on Wednesday with revised conditions based on discussion.
Motion carried 6-4, with Erickson, Haase, Harris, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Burress, Eichhorn, Ermeling, and Jennings voted in opposition.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was established that Staff was being directed to return with language very similar to the conditions that had just been defeated in the proposed substitute motion. Those voting against the substitute motion and in favor of the original motion were asked to contact Staff with suggestions for revised language.
Item was tabled to the Wednesday meeting.
08/24/05 – item untabled
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff said the memo in tonight’s communications outlined new language proposed and agreed upon by City staff and all legal representatives. The applicant had stated no objection to the revised conditions.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Burress said he would like the conditions to include the execution (by this applicant only) of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district in the event a new road was constructed south of 25th Street. Staff stated no objection to this change.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Ermeling to approve the revised Preliminary Development Plan for Mt. Blue Addition No. 3 with revised conditions as follows:
1. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future public improvements to Franklin Road.
2. Revisions to the PDP to include labels for top of the wall elevations for the wall around the detention basin.
3. Revisions to the PDP to include two additional notes on the plan, to read:
a. “Per City Code Section 9-903(b), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be released for building permits 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.”
b. “The intersection of Thomas Court and Franklin Road will be altered or eliminated when necessary for the improvements at the intersection of E23rd Street/K-10 Hwy and Franklin Road.”
c. “For planning purposes, a future cul-de-sac is conceptually shown on the western end of Thomas Court, east of the intersection of Thomas Court and Franklin Road. Exact location and determination of the responsible parties to construct and pay for development of this road improvement shall be determined at a later date as part of any consideration to close/remove the existing intersection of Thomas Court with Franklin Road.”
4. Revisions to the PDP to include the following revisions and an additional note on the plan:
a. Show a 30’ wide future public access easement, using dashed lines that extend from the existing Thomas Court cul-de-sac south, to a connection with E 25th Street. Note on the plan: “This future road easement is shown for planning purposes only. Dedication of the easement will be required when a final development plan for any of the lots adjacent to this easement is submitted for approval.”
b. Correct the required parking annotation on the PDP to correctly list the referenced parking group as ‘17’.
5. Execution of an agreement not to protest formation of a benefit district for improvements to the connection of Thomas Court to 25th Street by Dean Penny for the two lots he controls, to be platted as Mt. Blue Addition No. 3.
Motion failed to carry 5-5, with Burress, Eichhorn, Haase, Harris and Jennings voting in favor. Erickson, Ermeling, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in opposition.
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Jennings to approve the revised Preliminary Development Plan for Mt. Blue Addition No. 3 with conditions as presented by Staff:
1. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future public improvements to Franklin Road.
2. Revisions to the PDP to include labels for top of the wall elevations for the wall around the detention basin.
3. Revisions to the PDP to include two additional notes on the plan, to read:
a. “Per City Code Section 9-903(b), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be released for building permits 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.”
b. “The intersection of Thomas Court and Franklin Road will be altered or eliminated when necessary for the improvements at the intersection of E23rd Street/K-10 Hwy and Franklin Road.”
c. “For planning purposes, a future cul-de-sac is conceptually shown on the western end of Thomas Court, east of the intersection of Thomas Court and Franklin Road. Exact location and determination of the responsible parties to construct and pay for development of this road improvement shall be determined at a later date as part of any consideration to close/remove the existing intersection of Thomas Court with Franklin Road.”
4. Revisions to the PDP to include the following revisions and an additional note on the plan:
Motion fails, 4-6, with Eichhorn, Jennings, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris and Krebs voted in opposition.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Lawson expressed his frustration that the Commission could not reach a consensus, even when all parties involved agreed on the conditions brought forward tonight. Haase said this was because some Commissioners, himself included, felt it was essential for the benefit of the public to retain the condition requiring a 30’ public access easement between Thomas Court and 25th Street. Staff pointed out that this was accomplished by proposed condition 4a. It was established that, in Staff’s opinion (legal and planning) the proposed condition expressed the maximum extent to which the City could control this element.
There was discussion about reconsidering the last motion, but no one voting in opposition to that motion expressed willingness to move for reconsideration.
Burress said he understood from Mr. Corliss’ statements on Monday that there would be equity problems in requiring exactions as supported by some members of the Commission, but that it would be possible.
It was noted that Mr. Penny’s partners had provided a letter stating they would not grant easements on their own properties to meet conditions placed on a plat involving only Mr. Penny’s land. It was understood that these owners would be expected to make dedications as they redeveloped their own properties.
Staff responded to various questions to clarify intent of the proposed conditions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Krebs to reconsider the first motion made and denied this evening, approval of the Preliminary Development Plan with conditions per Staff and added conditions as stated previously.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Lawson asked to hear from the applicant regarding the added condition, saying it was likely the conditions as strictly proposed by Staff were created through cooperation by all parties. Burress said the Commission must be cautious about negotiating with applicants. Lawson said he did not intend to enter into negotiations but the applicant’s input might influence his vote.
C.L. Maurer, Landplan Engineering, asked for clarification on behalf of the applicants, pointing out they had already agreed to provide an access easement and to participate in a benefit district when it was formed. Staff explained the additional condition was written to require execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district now, rather than in the future. However, the district could be formed only with 51% of property ownership participation and the applicants represented property owners who held more than 51%.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to reconsider the first motion of the evening.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Haase said he was trying to vote to maintain the public’s legal interest in having a local street paid for through a benefit district, not by the public at large. He said the circumstances behind the construction of the existing cul-de-sac (Thomas Court) were irrelevant. Staff responded to questioning that the motion on the floor accomplished Haase’s stated intent to the best of the City’s legal ability.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the revised Preliminary Development Plan for Mt. Blue Addition No. 3 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future public improvements to Franklin Road.
2. Revisions to the PDP to include labels for top of the wall elevations for the wall around the detention basin.
3. Revisions to the PDP to include two additional notes on the plan, to read:
a. “Per City Code Section 9-903(b), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be released for building permits 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.”
b. “The intersection of Thomas Court and Franklin Road will be altered or eliminated when necessary for the improvements at the intersection of E23rd Street/K-10 Hwy and Franklin Road.”
c. “For planning purposes, a future cul-de-sac is conceptually shown on the western end of Thomas Court, east of the intersection of Thomas Court and Franklin Road. Exact location and determination of the responsible parties to construct and pay for development of this road improvement shall be determined at a later date as part of any consideration to close/remove the existing intersection of Thomas Court with Franklin Road.”
4. Revisions to the PDP to include the following revisions and an additional note on the plan:
a. Show a 30’ wide future public access easement, using dashed lines that extend from the existing Thomas Court cul-de-sac south, to a connection with E 25th Street. Note on the plan: “This future road easement is shown for planning purposes only. Dedication of the easement will be required when a final development plan for any of the lots adjacent to this easement is submitted for approval.”
b. Correct the required parking annotation on the PDP to correctly list the referenced parking group as ‘17’.
5. Execution of an agreement not to protest formation of a benefit district for improvements to the connection of Thomas Court to 25th Street by Dean Penny for the two lots he controls, to be platted as Mt. Blue Addition No. 3.
Motion carried 8-2, with Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Eichhorn and Jennings voted in opposition.
The Commission moved at this point to Item 8.
PC meeting minutes 08/22/05
MISC. ITEM NO. 1: OLD BUSINESS
The Commission received notification of the nomination of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church to the National Register of Historic Places.
No action was required.
PC meeting minutes 08/22/05
MISC. ITEM NO. 2: NEW/OTHER BUSINESS
The Commission was asked to notify Staff as soon as possible if they would be available on the evening of November 5, 2005 to continue the Commission’s goal setting session.
The Commission considered a deferral request for Items 16A & 16B at this point.
9:45 p.m. - Recess until 6:30 P.M. on August 24, 2005
Planning Commission Agenda Meeting
August 22 & 24, 2005
Meeting Minutes DRAFT
_____________________________________________________________________________
August 24, 2005 – reconvened at 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Say, Patterson, Pool and Saker
_____________________________________________________________________________
MINUTES
Motioned by Erickson, seconded by Haase to approve the July 2005 minutes as presented.
Motion carried 8-0-2, with Jennings and Krebs abstaining due to their absence from the July meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Finger outlined the following communications:
ITEM 7: Preliminary Development Plan for Mt. Blue
ITEMS 17A-17C: Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and PDP for Spring Hill
ITEM 18: Text Amendment to Chapter 21 concerning concurrent submittals
General
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUESTS
· No ex parte communications were disclosed.
· No abstentions were indicated.
· The Commission granted deferral of Items 17A-17C as requested by the applicant.
The Commission returned at this point to discussion of Item 7, which was tabled from the Monday meeting.
Swearing in of speakers
PC meeting minutes 08/24/05
ITEM NO 8: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CELL TOWER EXPANSION & ANTENNA CO-LOCATION; 304 E 1600 ROAD (SLD)
CUP-06-05-05: Conditional Use Permit request for cell tower extension and antenna co-location. The property is located at 304 E 1600 Road. Submitted by Sprint PCS, applicant for SpectraSite, property owner of record.
Item 8 was deferred prior to the meeting.
PC meeting minutes 08/24/05
ITEM NO 9: A TO A-1; 6.09 ACRES; SOUTHEAST CORNER OF N 900 ROAD AND E 1050 ROAD (PGP)
Z-07-45-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 6.09 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of N 900 and E 1050 Roads. Submitted by Eldon R. Mize, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson explained the subject property did not qualify for exemption because of previous land divisions, so the applicant was required to plat and rezone in order to get a building permit.
Staff said the surrounding area is developed with scattered rural residences in the A (Agricultural) zoning and is adjacent to the federally designated floodplain to the north, east and west. This was important because, as development took place, the floodplain would diminish the ability to develop to an urban density.
Staff recommended denial of the request based on three findings:
1. The property is located outside of the urban growth boundary;
2. This division does not qualify for the exemption in the subdivision regulations, previous land divisions having exceeded three, including a division of less than 5 acres; and
3. The character of the area and adjacent land uses are significantly influenced by the nearest to two creeks with FEMA designated floodplains.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Eldon Mize, applicant, said he bought the subject property in 2004 with the intent of building a home. He said it was not his original intent to rezone the property, but he was told this was necessary in order to obtain a building permit.
Mr. Mize said there were several residences scattered nearby that had been in place 6-7 years and he did not understand how those homes had been built and his could not. He said the regulations, as he understood them, required a minimum of 5 acres and 250’ of road frontage in order to build a house and his property was 6.9 acres. Mr. Mize said he had found no one to adequately explain to him if there had been a violation and, if so, how and when it occurred. He also wanted to know why the violation had not been dealt with when it occurred.
It was suggested that Mr. Mize was not the first person to be confused by the regulations nor the first person who bought property without fully understanding the development restrictions that would apply. Burress asked what procedures were in place to prevent this from happening. Ms. Finger said there was no known violation. The Subdivision Regulations did not apply to a property until a building permit was requested. Until this occurred, there was no way for Planning or Zoning and Codes staff to know previous divisions had occurred (previous divisions are accomplished and recorded under separate regulations and are not reviewed or received by Planning Staff).
Ms. Finger explained in response to questioning that the original tract had been split three times with one resulting parcel of less than 5 acres. This was allowable by Code and was not a violation of any kind, but it did make the property now non-exempt from the subdivision regulations and restricted further divisions of property to the platting and zoning process.
Staff noted that this item and Items 10 & 11 were similar and would all be impacted by the pending new county regulations.
Haase said the County Commission had approved two provisions to prevent additional rural residential development until the new regulations were in place – the moratorium and the division limitations cited by Staff. He said the Planning Commission had no authority to address the issue raised by Mr. Mize and could only address the issue of rezoning. Information on prior divisions is readily available at the Register of Deeds Office.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Mize asked for clarification on when the moratorium had been established and if it technically applied to his property. He also stated that the majority of divisions in the rural areas were for single tracts of agriculturally zoned land, which he stated were intended for single-family dwellings.
Ms. Finger said the agricultural zoning district was actually intended for agricultural, not residential uses. Single-family homes were permitted in agricultural zoning, but only if the land was exempt from the Subdivision Regulations. This property was not exempt for the reasons previously stated.
Mr. Patterson drew attention to the letter from existing area residents that expressed concern about the gravel roads. The letter stated that paved roads were needed to serve their residential uses.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was suggested that the Subdivision Regulations, while nebulous in content, were clear in their intent to limit and reduce density and intensity of residential development outside the UGA.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Lawson to deny the rezoning of 6.9 acres from A to A-1, and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for denial, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
COMMENT ON THE MOTION
The applicant was advised that the Planning Commission acted in an advisory capacity on rezonings and the Country Commission had the final decision on these issues. It was suggested that the Governing Body would have more leeway to consider elements (such as code enforcement) that the Planning Commission could not.
PC meeting minutes 08/24/05
ITEM NO 10: A TO A-1; 10.09 ACRES; 771 HWY. 40 (PGP)
Z-07-47-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 10.09 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at 771 Highway 40. Submitted by Elnora Burggraf, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a request for rezoning that would allow (with platting) the acquisition of a building permit to construct a second residence. He described the surrounding area as agricultural in character, with existing rural residences in all directions including 7 nearby ranging in size from 3-5+ acres. Areas of B-1 and A-1 zoning were noted in the surrounding area as well.
Staff said the property is within the UGA, served by Rural Water District #1 and takes access off of Highway 40. Approval was recommended with conditions as listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Elnora Burggraf, applicant, said she had owned the subject property since 1978. Ms. Burggraf stated her intent was to provide a tract for her daughter and son-in-law to build a home on, keeping them close to provide assistance.
Ms. Burggraf said no access road would be needed for the new home because it one was already established, as was a utility easement recorded by Southwestern Bell in 1994. She commented that the existing access road was used by KDOT crews all summer.
QUESTIONS
Eichhorn asked how the three proposed tracts would meet road frontage requirements. Staff said exact lot configuration would not be determined until the area was platted.
It was verified that up to three homes could be developed on the resulting lots and it would be reasonable to plat them so none took access to Highway 40. KDOT would likely prefer access that access be taken to the existing road to the west, relocating the existing driveway from Highway 40 to the local road.
Krebs referenced the concern raised by the League of Women Voters that no new subdivisions should be allowed that were not contiguous to another platted subdivision.
Haase said the Commission was called upon to decide if they wanted to uphold a strict or liberal interpretation of vague regulatory language.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant.
Staff noted the submission of a letter of support from area residents.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Haase said the RPC took up the issue of rural development for three years and brought forward proposed regulations that would preclude any of the existing developments in and around the subject area from occurring in their current state. The Planning Commission had unanimously supported that recommendation and the County Commission went a step further by establishing a moratorium on 5-acre exemptions until new regulations were in place.
Until the new regulations were adopted, Haase said the contiguity requirement was one of the few criteria provided to assess rural subdivisions and it should be applied strictly. He said the 5-acre exemption was established with good intent, but had led to 30+ years of bad regulations and costly rural development. He could not support any action that would ‘copy’ the 5-acre exemption until these matters were settled; feeling this kind of development was harmful to the public interest. Haase indicated his intent to apply the same arguments to several other similar requests in tonight’s agenda.
Haase said he would like the County Commission to consider regulations that would allow exceptions to be granted to individuals under particular circumstances and not be attached to a tract of ground. He was sympathetic to this applicant’s cause, but he felt it important to maintain strict adherence to the laws in place today. In addition, he could not support any action that would copy the 5-acre exemption until these matters were settled. The proposed rezoning is not contiguous to an existing platted subdivision.
Burress asked if Haase intended to oppose all rural rezoning requests until the new regulations were in place. Haase said it would be inappropriate for him to decide at this time how he would vote on later requests, but he would ask when the time came that his earlier comments be applied to those cases.
Lawson asked that the record reflect that there was not a community consensus regarding the negative impacts of the 5-acre exemption. Many county residents still felt the 5-acre exemption was a viable and appropriate tool for regulating development. He also said Haase’s comments about the proposed Rural Development chapter made the document sound “more legitimate than it is.” He said the County had stated several times that the chapter as written went in the “wrong direction” and the concepts developed in the chapter would not be applied.
Lawson said he did not feel it was reasonable or equitable to take a hard line stance toward rural development, particularly for areas within the UGA were platting was required and would help ensure the development would take place in a manner that would accommodate annexation and future redevelopment.
Burress said the Commission’s pattern had been for leniency in recommending subdivision approvals, based on Staff’s liberal interpretation of regulations that Burress said were “broken” – giving no clear criteria for considering the requests. He said the recent expansion of the UGA seemed to indicate the community’s desire to encourage development to occur within the UGA, not outside the UGA boundary.
It was discussed that the County Commission had directed Staff to develop new criteria for considering rural subdivision requests, including paved roads, access to water, location inside the UGA and the potential extension of roadways. Proposals brought forward by Staff in accordance with this direction were denied. Staff was faced with a continued lack of guidance on these requests.
Haase responded to questioning that the RPC recommended encouraging new rural subdivisions to consider certain elements, none of which were addressed by any of the rural rezoning requests on tonight’s agenda. He did not favor “holding applicants hostage” in anticipation of adopting policies for a build-through approach that “is not going to happen”. He added that, if the County Commission felt strongly that grievous mistakes were being made, they would direct the Planning Commission to stop making these recommendations.
It was suggested that it was impractical to ask applicants at the rezoning stage to look at issues that were appropriately addressed in a plat, such as building layout, street design and utility accessibility.
Ms. Finger responded to questioning that the County Commission directed Staff to stop work on revising the proposed rural development chapter (policy) and focus on how to implement a different interpretation of the concepts (regulations).
Ms. Burggraf was allowed to speak again. She asked how many of the current Commissioners voted to allow the circle drive for her neighbors to the east. If her neighbor was allowed two cuts on the highway, she did not understand why she could not have the same. Staff said the referenced development to the east was (probably) accomplished under the 5-acre exemption and therefore did not come to the Planning Commission for review.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Erickson to deny the rezoning request based on the arguments introduced by Haase into the record.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Krebs said she agreed with the idea that development in the UGA needed to be planned more carefully. However, she supported the interpretation of HORIZON 2020 that requirements for contiguity applied to developments outside the UGA. She said this was supported by the fact that HORIZON 2020 did not disallow rural development inside the UGA but encouraged it in certain forms.
Haase said he agreed the language about contiguity was vague, but he wished to apply the strictest interpretation possible for maximum public protection. It was suggested that the tracts involved in this request were not large enough to realistically apply the RPC’s recommendations for long-range build-out concepts.
Burress said HORIZON 2020 did not specifically relate the contiguity criteria to areas inside the UGA, but there was no reason this concept could not be applied, particularly since every other tool for regulating rural development and limiting sprawl had been compromised.
Krebs referenced the suggestion from the League of Women Voters that a moratorium be placed on rural rezonings and subdivisions until the new regulations were adopted. Staff said the Planning Commission did not have the authority to adopt a moratorium, and the concept should be discussed with the County Counsel Evan Ice if they wished to proceed in that direction.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to deny the rezoning of 10.09 acres from A to A-1 and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for denial, based on the arguments entered into the record by Haase.
Motion failed to carry, 5-5, with Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase and Riordan voting in favor. Eichhorn, Harris, Jennings, Krebs and Lawson voted in opposition.
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Jennings to approve the rezoning of 10.09 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 and conditions presented in the body of the Staff Report.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Eichhorn repeated that the majority of concerns raised tonight related to the plat, not the rezoning. Haase replied that he was always reluctant to grant rezoning without a clear vision of how development would occur and he was concerned about granting zoning for a property where no viable development plan would be possible based on a strict interpretation of regulations.
There was discussion about deferring all rural rezoning requests until the County Commission adopted new regulations. It was suggested that deferral was unnecessary because denied requests could reapply under the new regulations with no waiting period. However, denied requests would have to wait 12 months before reapplying if the new regulations were not adopted first. Staff pointed out that, in either case, the applicant would be subject to another submittal fee of approximately $100.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the rezoning of 10.09 acres from A to A-1 and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners, 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 failed, 4-6, with Eichhorn, Jennings, Krebs and Lawson voting in favor.
Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris and Riordan voted in opposition.
Motioned by Harris, seconded by Eichhorn to waive rezoning application fees for this property owner for this property in the event resubmittal is made possible by the adoption of new County zoning regulations within the next 12 months.
Motion carried 9-0, with Haase absent during the vote.
PC meeting minutes 08/24/05
ITEM NO 11: A TO A-1; 8.5 ACRES; 1010 E 1500 ROAD (PGP)
Z-07-49-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 8.5 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at 1010 E 1500 Road. Submitted by Taylor Design Group, P.A., for Delores Clarridge, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a request to rezone property already developed with a house and barn. He said the property was not engaged in agricultural production but did have a number of mature trees. The subject property is within the UGA, takes access from a paved road and is approximately 2.6 miles south of the Lawrence city limits.
Staff found the proposal to be consistent with existing rural residential properties in the area and recommended approval of the rezoning subject to conditions listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Steve Marino, Taylor Design Group, was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Marino expressed agreement with the recommendations of Staff.
QUESTIONS
The Commission had no questions for the applicant or Staff.
PUBLIC HEARING
Cindy Nau, area residents, spoke in support of the comments Commissioner Haase made during Item 10 regarding the need to apply strict limitations to rural development. She said development was taking place with no planning and she would support a moratorium until more effective regulations were in place.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was discussed that a rezoning was approved north across the road and that the road was classified as a principal arterial. The proposed County regulations included a recommendation to require a minimum of 1320 feet between access points on a principal arterial. This proposal did address the issues of road frontage and corner clearance as indicated in the proposed new access regulations. While these regulations are not in place, HORIZON 2020 does not provide clear guidance and it was suggested that the Commission look at the proposed regulations for direction. Lawson expressed strong objection to attempting to apply regulations that were not yet adopted saying it was unfair to base a decision on concepts that were not fully developed.
Haase asked that the record for this item incorporate his previous statements presented in discussion of Item 10, as they were relevant to this case as well:
“Haase said the RPC took up the issue of rural development for three years and brought forward proposed regulations that would preclude any of the existing developments in and around the subject area from occurring in their current state. The Planning Commission had unanimously supported that recommendation and the County Commission went a step further by establishing a moratorium on 5-acre exemptions until new regulations were in place.
Until the new regulations were adopted, Haase said the contiguity requirement was one of the few criteria provided to assess rural subdivisions and it should be applied strictly. He said the 5-acre exemption was established with good intent, but had led to 30+ years of bad regulations and costly rural development. He could not support any action that would ‘copy’ the 5-acre exemption until these matters were settled; feeling this kind of development was harmful to the public interest. Haase indicated his intent to apply the same arguments to several other similar requests in tonight’s agenda.
Haase said the RPC took up the issue of rural development for three years and brought forward proposed regulations that would preclude any of the existing developments in and around the subject area from occurring in their current state. The Planning Commission had unanimously supported that recommendation and the County Commission went a step further by establishing a moratorium on 5-acre exemptions until new regulations were in place.
Until the new regulations were adopted, Haase said the contiguity requirement was one of the few criteria provided to assess rural subdivisions and it should be applied strictly. He said the 5-acre exemption was established with good intent, but had led to 30+ years of bad regulations and costly rural development. He could not support any action that would ‘copy’ the 5-acre exemption until these matters were settled; feeling this kind of development was harmful to the public interest. Haase indicated his intent to apply the same arguments to several other similar requests in tonight’s agenda.”
Haase added that the proposed rezoning was along a principal arterial upon which access management standards must be considered. Any development on the tract would be in contravention to access management regulations proposed by the county engineer. The proposed rezoning is not contiguous to an existing platted subdivision.
It was verified that the subject property had 981 feet of frontage along E. 1500 Road. Haase said here was a potential for two building sites, so the frontage of a single site would be less than 981 feet.
In light of the approval given to the property to the west in March 2005, Lawson said it would be “brazen” to deny this similar request. Haase said using the proposed new regulations was appropriate for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Jennings to approve the rezoning as presented by Staff.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
There was additional discussion about the appropriateness of applying the proposed new regulations before they are adopted, vs. considering the project according to the vague and often nonexistent language in the current regulations regarding County subdivisions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the rezoning of 8.5 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 conditions:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning resolution.
Motion failed, 2-7-1, with Jennings and Lawson in favor. Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris and Riordan voted in opposition and Krebs abstained from the vote.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
Krebs responded to questioning that she abstained because she did not feel it was appropriate to make policy-related decisions tonight, but she was swayed by the comments about access management.
10 minute recess
Ermeling encouraged the public to “get active” and push public officials to get better policy in place so these kinds of discussions were not necessary.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Ermeling to deny the rezoning request and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for denial, based on the following findings of fact:
1. Arguments as raised in discussion;
2. Concerns about the impacts of additional access cuts onto a major arterial;
3. Pending regulations including recommendations by the County Engineer that would preclude this proposal; and
4. Concern for the public health, safety and welfare based on the access management standards under consideration by the County Commission.
Motion carried, 7-2-1, with Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris and Riordan voting in favor. Jennings and Lawson voted in opposition and Krebs abstained from the vote.
PC meeting minutes 08/24/05
ITEM NO 12A: A TO A-1; 62.62 ACRES; SOUTH OF N 1000 ROAD AND EAST OF E 1450 ROAD (LAP)
Z-05-31-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 62.62 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located south of N 1000 Road and east of E 1450 Road. Submitted by The Peridian Group for May-West, L.C., and Michael R. and Sherri L. Bray, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the June & July meeting.
PC meeting minutes 08/24/05
ITEM NO 12B: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRAY ESTATES; SOUTH OF N 1000 ROAD AND EAST OF E 1450 ROAD (LAP)
PP-05-08-05: Preliminary Plat for Bray Estates. This proposed 10-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 62.62 acres. The property is generally described as being located south of N 1000 Road and east of E 1450 Road. Submitted by The Peridian Group for May-West, L.C., and Michael R. and Sherri L. Bray, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the June & July meeting.
Items 12A & 12B were deferred prior to the meeting.
PC meeting minutes 08/24/05
ITEM NO 13A: A TO A-1; 18.5 ACRES; NORTHWEST CORNER OF E 1600 ROAD AND N 1000 ROAD (LAP)
Z-05-32-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 18.5 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at the northwest corner of E 1600 Road and N 1000 Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for David E. Mears, property owner of record. (This item relates to PP-05-09-05.)
PC meeting minutes 08/24/05
ITEM NO 13B: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEARS PROPERTY; NORTHWEST CORNER OF E 1600 ROAD AND N 1000 ROAD (LAP)
PP-05-09-05: Preliminary Plat for Mears Property. This proposed five-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 18.5 acres. The property is generally described as being located at the northwest corner of E 1600 Road and N 1000 Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for David E. Mears, property owner of record. This item was deferred by the applicant from the June Planning Commission meeting.
Items 13A & 13B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Pool introduced the items, a rezoning and preliminary plat for a 5-lot single-family residential development within the UGA. She noted that the applicant had provided a concept plan for potential redevelopment after annexation, as suggested in the proposed new regulations.
The Commission had deferred the proposal in June based on concerns expressed by area residents that this development would significantly increase existing stormwater drainage problems in the area. The County Engineer had reviewed the proposal and expressed no concern about potential stormwater runoff related to the project.
Ms. Pool said the development would have no access to N 1000 Road and there would be two shared access points onto E. 1600 Road.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
John Selk, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He explained the plat was revised to address traffic concerns raised by the public at the June meeting. Access was revised at the suggestion of the County Public Works Director.
Mr. Selk said the future subdivision of lots after annexation was dictated by long strips along the north and west that would likely become roadways when and if the area was urbanized in the future. This is why the concept plan was designed along traditional block patterns.
Mr. Selk said a “spot speed study” along E. 1600 Road revealed surprisingly low average traffic speeds and volumes for a hard surface road. He said sight distances were more than sufficient for traffic traveling at 80 mph, which was well beyond the design standards for the 55 mph road.
In response to stormwater concerns, Mr. Selk said the impervious surface added by the project would increase stormwater runoff by less than 1%. In addition, this proposal represented the last piece of undeveloped ground in the 107-acre sub-basin. Mr. Selk pointed out that future urbanization of the area would include major stormwater improvements.
The applicant said that each lot in this development had the potential to split into 4 lots, but this would still be considered low density by urban design standards. He responded to questioning that it was too soon to guess the ultimate road system or access design if these divisions did occur, but the development would not have access onto N 1000 Road so it was likely only the northern lots (those furthest from the arterial) would redevelop.
Mr. Selk responded to questioning that the flag lot design proposed in this development would not be repeated when and if the northern lots subdivided in the future. He noted that the flag lot was proposed at the request of the County Public Works Director because it satisfied his concerns about reducing access (to the external street).
It was noted that the Staff Report summarized how flooding and stormwater runoff data had been developed. These calculations were based on the proposed 5 lots, and future redevelopment after annexation would be subject to the stricter City regulations.
Mr. Selk said the applicant agreed to dedicate the right-of-way needed to accomplish road improvements on both N 1000 Road and E. 1600 Road.
Staff pointed out that a motion to approve the rezoning was on the floor when this item was deferred in June. No opposition was expressed to reopening the public hearing for members of the public who came tonight expecting an opportunity to address the Commission about the proposed rezoning. It was noted that the preliminary plat was a non-public hearing item.
PUBLIC HEARING
Wendy Dalquist, adjacent property owner, referenced traffic concerns outlined in her letter to the Commission. She said she had witnessed several accidents at the subject intersection, including ones resulting in severe injury and death. She said the average speed on these roads was much higher than stated by the applicant, estimating about 70 mph in this 55 mph zone.
Ms. Dalquist said weekday morning traffic was of significant concern and traffic frequently did not stop at the intersection even after larger stop signs were installed. She said eleven building permits had been issued for the southeast corner of this intersection and more homes meant more curb cuts, more school bus stops and more cars leaving the area for work every morning, all heading for the main road.
Ms. Dalquist asked the Commission to plan the roads and intersections before allowing any more homes in this area.
Tom Nau, area property owner, agreed with the previous speaker that traffic speeds were higher now that the road was paved.
Mr. Nau and his wife, Cindy Nau, presented a three-minute video of recent flooding conditions in the area, pointing out existing ditches and ponds overflowing onto residential lots. The Nau’s said water reached into their backyard and other homes were even more critically impacted by water runoff problems. They did not see how adding roads and homes would not increase these problems.
Mr. Nau said he understood the current guidelines were lacking, but he did not think it was appropriate to “pass the buck” and asked the Commission to “plan for the future”.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Selk said he appreciated the area resident’s concerns about flooding, but this development would not impact their existing conditions because it was on the other side of the ridge line and did not drain into the same area. He pointed out that, following this development, the County might consider improving the existing culvert (under N 1600 Road), thus improving current drainage problems.
There were no closing comments from Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff responded to several questions:
Eichhorn suggested the rezoning request was appropriate because he believed the property was suitable for residential development. In considering the plat, it became an issue of maximizing land use for the applicant and/or the public and increasing developer costs by making requirements beyond the Code minimum.
Burress said the proposal met the criteria of contiguity and access, but he was concerned about allowing additional residential development in the area before addressing existing problems of flooding and traffic safety.
Haase said there was extensive case law regarding contiguity and multiple interpretations of how a parcel may meet this criterion. Applying his interpretation of case law, this property did not meet the contiguity criteria.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor, (active from the June meeting) was to approve the rezoning as presented by Staff.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was suggested that it would be irresponsible to allow more development in this area without improvements to address existing conditions.
Haase asked that the record for this item incorporate his statements from discussion of Item 10, as they were relevant to this case as well:
“Haase said the RPC took up the issue of rural development for three years and brought forward proposed regulations that would preclude any of the existing developments in and around the subject area from occurring in their current state. The Planning Commission had unanimously supported that recommendation and the County Commission went a step further by establishing a moratorium on 5-acre exemptions until new regulations were in place.
Until the new regulations were adopted, Haase said the contiguity requirement was one of the few criteria provided to assess rural subdivisions and it should be applied strictly. He said the 5-acre exemption was established with good intent, but had led to 30+ years of bad regulations and costly rural development. He could not support any action that would ‘copy’ the 5-acre exemption until these matters were settled; feeling this kind of development was harmful to the public interest. Haase indicated his intent to apply the same arguments to several other similar requests in tonight’s agenda.
Haase said the RPC took up the issue of rural development for three years and brought forward proposed regulations that would preclude any of the existing developments in and around the subject area from occurring in their current state. The Planning Commission had unanimously supported that recommendation and the County Commission went a step further by establishing a moratorium on 5-acre exemptions until new regulations were in place.
Until the new regulations were adopted, Haase said the contiguity requirement was one of the few criteria provided to assess rural subdivisions and it should be applied strictly. He said the 5-acre exemption was established with good intent, but had led to 30+ years of bad regulations and costly rural development. He could not support any action that would ‘copy’ the 5-acre exemption until these matters were settled; feeling this kind of development was harmful to the public interest. Haase indicated his intent to apply the same arguments to several other similar requests in tonight’s agenda.”
Haase added other points:
ACTION TAKEN
Item 13A
Motion on the floor was to approve the rezoning of 18.5 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 conditions:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning resolution.
Motion failed, 3-7, with Eichhorn, Jennings and Lawson in favor. Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs and Riordan voted in opposition.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The applicant asked the Commission to defer the items to allow them to return with answers to the issues raised tonight. This would include information on the culvert as the source of existing flooding problems and a redesigned plat eliminating the flag lot.
There was discussion with staff about the process for replacing the existing culvert. Staff said the applicant might offer to fund the replacement but actual plans for a new culvert would have to be discussed further with various Township/County departments.
Staff said additional investigation would be needed to determine needed
intersection improvements and to what degree these were or could be related to
the subject development.
Haase said he was disinclined to support deferral because there were sufficient grounds for denial. He said this proposal came close to emulating the 5-acre exemption and the County Commission had expressed questions about the appropriateness of that development pattern.
It was established that adoption of the new regulations would, in Staff’s opinion, constitute a substantial change and allow the applicant to resubmit the proposal in less than 12 months following denial.
ACTION TAKEN
Items 13A & 13B
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Lawson to defer Items 13A & 13B to the October 2005 meeting.
Motion failed, 3-7, with Eichhorn, Jennings and Lawson in favor. Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs and Riordan voted in opposition.
Item 13A
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Ermeling to deny the rezoning and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for denial, based on the following findings of fact:
1. Arguments as raised in discussion;
2. No verifiable information to contradict public testimony about intersection hazards; and
3. Significant concern about the public health, safety and welfare.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Haase responded to questioning that he purposely did not include the issue of flooding in his findings because he was convinced by the applicant’s testimony that stormwater runoff would not be significantly impacted by this development.
Lawson asked why Haase was willing to accept the applicant’s testimony on flooding but not on traffic. He suggested that transient traffic cutting across the area to Kansas City created the traffic problems at this intersection and that the intersection would continue to face problems until the community built the much-needed bypass.
Burress said he was willing to accept that the existing dangerous conditions at this intersection were created by transient, not local, traffic. However, this made it all the more important that new homes (more residents) not be put into this unsafe area.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 13A
Motion on the floor was to deny the rezoning and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for denial, based on the following findings of fact:
1. Arguments as raised in discussion;
2. No verifiable information to contradict public testimony about intersection hazards; and
3. Significant concern about the public health, safety and welfare.
Motion carried 7-3, Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs and Riordan in favor. Eichhorn, Jennings and Lawson voted in opposition.
Item 13B
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Harris to deny the Preliminary Plat for the Mears Property, based on the following findings of fact:
1. Arguments as raised in discussion;
2. No verifiable information to contradict public testimony about intersection hazards;
3. Significant concern about the public health, safety and welfare; and
4. Subject property is not properly zoned to accommodate platted subdivisions.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
Jennings stated for the record that he voted in support of the rezoning because he felt the subject area was appropriate for residential development, but against the plat because of the proposed flag lot.
PC meeting minutes 08/24/05
ITEM NO 14: M-1 TO RO-2; .99 ACRES; BETWEEN E. 19TH & HOMEWOOD STREETS (LAP)
Z-07-44-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately .99 acres from M-1 (Research Industrial) District to RO-2 (Residence Office) District. The property is generally described as being located between E. 19th and Homewood Streets, east of Bullene Avenue, and commonly known as 931, 927, and 935 Homewood Street and 934 and 938 E. 19th Street. Initiated by the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission on June 22, 2005.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Pool introduced the item, a request initiated by the Commission to rezone 5 properties containing single-family homes from M-1 to RO-2. She noted that surrounding areas to the east and west had been zoned for residential uses and Staff recommended approval of this proposal to create conformity and consistency of zoning with the uses within the block.
QUESTIONS
The Commission had no questions for Staff.
PUBLIC HEARING
Joe Takacs, Chairman of the Salvation Army Advisory Board, said they would like to retain M-1 zoning on their subject property because they were concerned how this would affect their ability to follow through with plans to develop two large buildings on their own adjacent property in the near future.
Staff responded to questioning that the changes associated with rezoning the subject properties to match existing uses should not have detrimental impacts on the Salvation Army property.
Meeting extended to 11:00.
Dori Lewman, area resident, spoke in support of the rezoning because it would allow her to construct residential accessory uses on her property.
Erma Dieker, area resident, spoke in support of the rezoning because it would bring her home into code conformance and allow reconstruction in the event of structural loss (fire etc.).
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Ermeling to approve the rezoning of .99 acres from M-1 to RO-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Lawson left at 10:30 p.m.
PC meeting minutes 08/24/05
ITEM NO 15A: M1-A TO RS-2; 8.0 ACRES; NORTH OF 31ST STREET AND EAST OF HASKELL AVENUE (LAP)
Z-06-36-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately eight acres from M-1A (Light Industrial) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of 31st Street and east of Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Mary’s Lake Properties, L.L.C., property owner of record. This item was deferred from the July Planning Commission meeting.
PC meeting minutes 08/24/05
ITEM NO 15B: M1-A TO RS-2; 2.09 ACRES; NORTH OF 31ST STREET AND EAST OF HASKELL AVENUE (LAP)
Z-06-37-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 2.09 acres from M-1A (Light Industrial) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District. The property is generally described as being located north of 31st Street and east of Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Mary’s Lake Properties, L.L.C., property owner of record. This item was deferred from the July Planning Commission meeting.
PC meeting minutes 08/24/05
ITEM NO 15C: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MARY’S LAKE ADDITION; NORTH OF 31ST STREET AND EAST OF HASKELL AVENUE (LAP)
PP-06-12-05: Preliminary Plat for Mary’s Lake Addition. The property is generally described as being located north of 31st Street and east of Haskell Avenue. This proposed residential subdivision contains approximately 15.98 acres. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Mary’s Lake Properties, L.L.C., property owner of record. This item was deferred from the July Planning Commission meeting.
Items 15A – 15C were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Pool introduced the items, two rezonings and a plat for an undeveloped section of heavily wooded land. The development proposed 41 single-family homes and the conveyance of a tract of land to the City for an extension of the Prairie Park Nature Area. The City was conveying Lots 38 & 39 to the applicant.
Two variances were requested as part of the plat:
1. Allow a cul-de-sac in excess of 1000 feet (1184 feet requested) Staff recommended approval; and
2. Allow a lot depth that did not meet the required minimum for Lot 1. Staff recommended denial.
The Staff Report mentioned a third potential variance to preclude a mid-block pedestrian easement. Staff said a variance was not needed. The intent of Parks & Recreation Director Fred DeVictor could be achieved by installing a north-west fence between the development and the adjacent parkland.
Ms. Pool said resolution of sanitary sewer issues was in progress and requirements would be applied as a condition of Final Plat approval.
Staff recommended approval of all three items, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Reports.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Herndon said the applicant was generally in agreement with the conditions proposed by Staff but had comments regarding plat details.
Mr. Herndon described the evolution of the plat leading to design of the cul-de-sac in excess of 1000 feet as shown and noted Staff’s recommendation for approval of this variance.
Regarding Staff’s recommended denial of the lot depth variance, Mr. Herndon showed how a conforming lot could be placed within the confines of the proposed Lot 1. By this reasoning, Lot 1 as proposed was larger than the code minimum and bringing the lot into conformance would actually make it smaller.
Mr. Herndon noted that Staff requested a 20’ landscape easement along the west side of the property, finding this an adequate transition and buffer to adjacent uses.
Haase said cul-de-sac length was often discussed only in terms of emergency service access. He said road maintenance was another germane consideration, since cul-de-sacs should hold no more than 24 units according to civil engineers. Cul-de-sacs with more than 24 units had to support higher trip generation numbers and thus faced elevated road maintenance needs.
Mr. Herndon said there were many opinions and sources of information about the best development practices, but the Code of the City of Lawrence did not consider cul-de-sac length according to housing numbers. The Code also provided a variance procedure for circumstances that met the intent of applicable standards. He said this request was reviewed by Planning, Public Works and Fire & Medical, and no opposition was expressed about the proposed cul-de-sac length.
Burress said he did not think the requested variance for lot depth strictly met the criteria, but he would like to think of a way to allow the lot configuration as proposed without need to grant a variance.
PUBLIC HEARING
Fred DeVictor, Parks & Recreation Director, explained the department had worked for several years to put together the acreage (Prairie Park) adjacent to this development. This was a unique natural environment that needed special considerations to preserve it, in its urban setting. This was the reasoning behind the requested fencing and pedestrian path restrictions that were reflected in the Staff Report.
Meeting extended to 11:30 p.m.
The Commission discussed fencing options to allow pedestrian access to 31st Street but not into the parkland. One option discussed was acquisition of the entire plat area by the City for park purposes. Mr. DeVictor, in response to the Commission’s inquiry, said the Parks & Recreation Department would strongly support the City’s acquisition of the area surrounding the parkland, but there was simply not enough available funding to do that.
Greg Hickam, area resident, referenced his letter to the Commission, saying it might seem odd because he was a real estate agent, but he would not like to see more residential development in this area. He said the surrounding area provided critical animal habitat appreciated by the community.
Mr. Hickam noted the proximity of the proposed residential use to existing industrial uses, saying these were not “noxious” industrial uses but a 20’ separation would seem small for residents.
Mr. Hickam also spoke about existing traffic conditions at the subdivision’s intersection with Haskell, and asked the Commission to recognize the existing congestion and imagine the addition that traffic generated by this development would create.
Mr. Hickam said he understood and did not challenge the importance of the City’s parkland acquisition. However he questioned whether the subject property was suitable for development at the density proposed and if this project would have as little impact as stated by the applicant.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Herndon pointed out that existing single-family residential development was already adjacent to the industrial parcel to the north. He noted that the proposed residential development would have far less impact on the adjacent parkland than industrial uses possible under the existing zoning.
Mr. Herndon said this project would result in the maximum build-out of the subject area. This meant there was no concern about future redevelopment increasing density or traffic impacts. He also noted that the proposed number of lots was low enough that a full traffic impact study had not been required.
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Ermeling said site visits showed that this was not a low density area and she did not see how this development would not add to existing conditions. She had concerns with traffic safety at existing volumes and, if public acquisition of the land was not a viable option, she would like to see development of a lower density than proposed.
Jennings said the proposed density and RS-2 matched that of existing residential development in the surrounding area. He said this conformity was necessary to make the resulting homes marketable in this neighborhood. He noted that the existing industrial zoning carried higher land values/prices than the proposed RS-2 zoning. He also noted that the existing industrial zoning backed up to (on the north) existing RS-2 zoning.
Haase asked if the City had exhausted every possibility for obtaining the area for parkland and said this should be a top priority. It was discussed that the City had adjusted a number of financial commitments to complete the acquisition of the portion of land proposed with this project. Mr. DeVictor said a limited range of additional funding may be pursued but those sources would not allow the purchase of a much larger section of land.
Staff responded to questioning that, in their professional opinion, the proposed 20’ landscape buffer between the subject property and adjacent uses to the west would provide an adequate visual barrier.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Item 15A
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Krebs to approve the rezoning of 8.0 acres from M1-A to RS-2 and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried 6-3, with Burress, Eichhorn, Harris, Jennings, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor. Haase, Erickson and Ermeling voted in opposition.
Item 15A
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Krebs to approve the rezoning of 2.09 acres from M1-A to RS-2 and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried 6-3, with Burress, Eichhorn, Harris, Jennings, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor. Haase, Erickson and Ermeling voted in opposition.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Erickson said she would like to have sidewalks provided on both sides of the local streets, although she understood that was not yet an adopted requirement. She also said she would like pedestrians to have access to 31st Street, even if access to the parkland was restricted. Staff explained the reasoning behind the proposed pedestrian path network and said there was no immediate recourse to address Erickson’s concerns.
Burress suggested an alternate interpretation of the language regarding lot depth, explaining that “mean depth” could be calculated using an infinite number of measurements. The code did not literally state the mean depth had to be calculated using the property boundaries. Using the alternate measuring method, Burress suggested the Commission find that no lot depth variance was needed for Lot 1. It was discussed that code language should be modified so only one interpretation, not a number of interpretations, was possible.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Krebs to overturn Staff’s interpretation of the code regarding lot depth requirements and determine that no variance is required for Lot 1.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Meeting extended 10 minutes.
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Jennings to approve the variance to allow a cul-de-sac 1184’ in length.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Haase said this issue continued to raise the question of whether the Commission took seriously the regulations on cul-de-sac length. If this was not the case, the matter should be dealt with at a policy level.
Jennings said
the cul-de-sac length had been given de facto approval by the City Commission
when the Governing Body approved the plat layout with the parkland acquisition.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the variance to allow a cul-de-sac 1184’ in length.
Motion failed, 4-5, with Eichhorn, Krebs, Jennings and Riordan voting in favor. Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase and Harris voted in opposition.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
In discussion of the alternatives left to the Commission upon denying the cul-de-sac length variance, several points were established:
· Action on a plat is required within 60 days so deferral was not an option.
· Without the cul-de-sac variance, the plat cannot proceed without significant modifications that will require design changes resulting in a new plat.
· A new plat without the variance would meet the criteria for substantial change and would not be subject to the 12 month resubmittal waiting period. (It was further discussed that the 12-month criteria does not apply to plats.)
· Burress indicated his intent to push for the provision of sidewalks on both sides of local streets.
· The two rezonings recommended for approval (Items 15A & 15B) were conditioned upon approval of a plat that now faces denial.
Mr. Herndon was allowed to clarify the applicant’s position, stating that denial of the cul-de-sac variance would result in a plat so “grossly out of context for this neighborhood” that it would “threaten [parkland] negotiations with the City.” Haase said this was a political issue beyond the scope of the Planning Commission. He said the applicant’s arguments would be more relevant at the City Commission level. It was noted that variances and preliminary plats do not typically go forward to the City Commission, however, the Codes do allow a process to do this. The applicant was provided with information about requesting a de novo hearing.
Meeting extended 10 minutes.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 15C
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Haase to deny the Preliminary Plat for Mary’s Lake Addition, based on the following finding of fact:
1. The plat, as proposed, requires a variance for cul-de-sac length that has been denied.
Motion carried 5-4, with Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase and Harris voting in favor. Eichhorn, Krebs, Jennings and Riordan voted in opposition.
PC meeting minutes 08/22/05
ITEM NO 16A: A TO RS-2; 10.281 ACRES; 515 MONTEREY WAY (LAP)
Z-07-46-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 10.281 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at 515 Monterey Way. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for Fairway, L.C., property owner of record.
PC meeting minutes 08/22/05
ITEM NO 16B: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DOOLITTLE SUBDIVISION; 515 MONTEREY WAY (LAP)
PP-07-17-05: Preliminary Plat for Doolittle Subdivision. This proposed 41-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 10.281 acres. The property is generally described as being located at 515 Monterey Way. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for Fairway, L.C., property owner of record.
Items 16A – 16B were discussed simultaneously. The Commission agreed to consider the applicant’s request for deferral at the Monday meeting.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Eichhorn to defer Items 16A & 16B to the September 2005 meeting.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
The Commission returned at this point to the end of the Monday agenda.
PC meeting minutes 08/24/05
ITEM NO 17A: 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. This item was deferred by the applicant from the June Planning Commission meeting.
PC meeting minutes 08/24/05
ITEM NO 17B: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE VILLAS AT SPRING HILL; SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MONTEREY WAY AND PETERSON ROAD (SLD)
PDP-05-05-05: Preliminary Development Plan for The Villas at Spring Hill. This proposed multiple-family residential subdivision contains approximately 11.337 acres. The property is generally described as being located at the southwest corner of Monterey Way and Peterson Road. Submitted by The Peridian Group for Jeffrey E. Smith Homes, L.C., property owner of record. This item was deferred by the applicant from the June Planning Commission meeting.
PC meeting minutes 08/24/05
ITEM NO 17C: 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 subdivision contains 19.299 acres, which includes a 20-lot single-family residential development containing 6.799 acres, and a one-lot planned residential development subdivision containing approximately 12.5 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. This item was deferred by the applicant from the June Planning Commission meeting.
Items 17A – 17C were discussed simultaneously.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Harris to defer Items 17A – 17C to the September 2005 meeting.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
PC meeting minutes 08/24/05
ITEM NO 18: TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 21 (LMF/SMS)
TA-07-02-05: Consider Text Amendment to Chapter 21 regarding concurrent submissions of preliminary and final plats.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Finger referenced the Staff memo that provided a minor text revision, incorporating changes suggested by the League of Women Voters. She indicated staff was in support of the recommended clarification.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Erickson to approve the Text Amendment to Chapter 21 as presented and forward it to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
MISC. ITEM NO. 3 OTHER BUSINESS
B. Eichhorn accepted the position of Chair of the newly-formed Douglas County Zoning Regulations Committee.
C. Staff asked if members of the Commission had an interest in meeting with the parties involved in the Bauer Farms project for a work session to review the current proposal and potential waivers. Several individuals expressed interest and were given authority to represent the full Commission at the work session.
ADJOURN – 11:50 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.