September 26 & 28, 2005
Meeting Minutes
_______________________________________________________________________
September 26, 2005 – 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Day, Patterson, Pool, Ahrens and Saker
_______________________________________________________________________
One change was requested to Item 11 in the August 2005 minutes.
Motioned by Lawrence, seconded by Haase to approve the August 2005 minutes as revised.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
NUC: The committee met and arranged for a presentation to be held at 9:00 am on Wednesday the 28th. It was hoped that all Commissioners could attend this presentation.
T2030: The committee met to continue work on the long-range transportation plan update. The group anticipated completion in 2007 and was discussing other community interests that should be involved in the process.
CPC: The committee met to continue revisions on the HORIZON 2020 industrial chapter. The committee also discussed how to proceed with the Southeast Area Plan revisions in light of mixed direction received from the City and County Commissions.
PCMM: The Commission received a presentation on transportation issues.
ITEM 1 - Final Plat for Stoneridge East
· Memo from staff with revised conditions
ITEMS 2A & 2B - Preliminary & Final Plats for Green Tree Subdivision #2
· Email from Alan Cowles requesting these items be removed from the non-public agenda for public discussion of stormwater issues This communication also applied to Item 1.
ITEM 3 - Final Development Plan for Park West Gardens
· Memo from Staff with additions to conditions of approval as recommended by Stormwater Engineer.
Item 5 – Final Plat for Fall Creek Farms
· Request for deferral from the applicant’s stormwater engineer
ITEM 10 – HORIZON 2020 Amendment to Chapter 8-Transportation
· Letter from the League of Women Voters with suggested changes
ITEMS 12 & 13 - Text Amendments to City Code Chapters 21 & 20
· Letter from Sally A Howard, Chief Counsel of KS Department of Transportation, to David Corliss discussing the issue.
MISC ITEM 1 - Reconsideration of Rezoning Request at Highway 56 and Highway 59
· Letter of opposition from League of Women Voters
ITEM 16 - Conditional Use Permit for Lawrence Energy Center Industrial Landfill
· Letter of opposition from multiple area property owners
· Letter of opposition from Les Blevins, area property owner
ITEM 17 - Rescind Minimum Maintenance Road Designation
· Letter of opposition from multiple area property owners
· Letter of opposition from Mr. Miller
· Faxed letter from Jonathan & Heidi Benham, neighboring property owners, expressing opposition to the proposal based on traffic safety concerns and issues with the resulting development
ITEM 18 - Use Permitted upon Review for New Horizons Tae Kwan Do Studio
· Letter from Christine Mercer Kraft, manager of a neighboring property-Lawrence Veterinary Hospital, supporting the proposal but expressing concern that adequate parking be provided.
ITEM 19B - Preliminary Plat for Doolittle Subdivision
· Letter from League of Women Voters of Lawrence-Douglas County urging neighborhood planning for this area
· Letter from Michael J Boring, neighboring property owner, expressing concern with potential loss of trees, possible stormwater runoff, inadequate vehicular access to the area, and suggesting the possibility of preserving the barn and creating a small park.
ITEM 20 – HORIZON 2020 Chapter 9 Amendment
· Letter from League of Women Voters of Lawrence-Douglas County expressing concern about the lack of mini-parks and location of neighborhood parks. Suggestions for improvements to the chapter were also included.
ITEM 21 B - Rezoning at Highway 40 & K-10 Highway
· Letter from Development Strategies, Inc. with the Combined Retail Impact Potential of Bauer Farm, Northgate and Mercato Projects.
MISC 1 - Master Plan Update – NW area
· Memo from Debbie Van Saun, Asst. City Manager, summarizing City staff’s concerns regarding the sanitary sewer collection system in the Northwest area of Lawrence. The memo also contains information on the status and schedule of the Hydraulic Analysis and Master Plan Update.
MISC 2 - Follow up Report for Items forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, August through September
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUESTS
· Haase said he was involved in a discussion following the August meeting that began as a general discussion about cul-de-sac length but eventually involved the Mary’s Lake proposal specifically.
· Burress said he was also involved in some of the discussion described by Haase.
· It was discussed that a group of developers invited the Commission to meet and discuss a specific development project. Staff explained that attending this meeting would not violate the Commission’s ex parte rules as long as attendance was disclosed. It was suggested that this meeting should be organized as a work session once a date was set.
· Haase said he would recuse himself from Item 16 because he was a stockholder in a company associated with this request.
· Eichhorn said he would recuse himself from Item 17 and speak during the public hearing
· Item 5 was deferred unanimously per the applicant’s request.
· Items 1, 3, 6 and 7 were pulled from the Consent Agenda by the applicant’s representatives.
· The remainder of the Consent Agenda was approved unanimously as presented.
PC meeting minutes 09/26/05 & 09/28/05
ITEM NO 1: FINAL PLAT FOR STONERIDGE EAST; SOUTHEAST CORNER OF W. 6TH & STONERIDGE DRIVE (EXTENDED) (SLD)
PF-08-28-05: Final Plat for Stoneridge East. This proposed residential subdivision contains 14.716 acres, and includes 13 single-family lots and one multi-family lot. The property is located at the southeast corner of W. 6th Street and Stoneridge Drive (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A. for MS Construction Co., Inc., property owner of record.
Pulled from Consent by Tim Herndon on behalf of applicant.
APPLICANT PRESNETATION
Tim Herdon Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant saying there was no objection to condition 2 as revised. However, the applicant would like to discuss condition 1 regarding a wastewater downstream analysis. It was understood that, the way this condition was worded, the Final Plat would not go forward until this analysis was submitted and approved.
Phil Struible, Landplan Engineering, explained the applicant would like condition 1 modified to reflect AP76, the adopted City policy regarding wastewater downstream analyses. Mr. Struble said the current condition was vague and did not provide clear guidance about submittal and review of the required analysis. He stated the applicant’s request that AP76 be referenced in this condition to provide this guidance. Mr. Struble said the applicant did not object to the requirement for analysis, but wanted it to be regulated according to understood City regulations.
Mr. Struble responded to questioning that the recent information about the inadequacy of the City’s wastewater system was a “nuclear explosion” to the development community. He said there were questions about how and why this new information had appeared so suddenly in the last few months with no warning in recent years.
Burress commented that it was true the information should have been discovered much sooner. However, if it was indeed the case that the City’s wastewater capacity was breached, the only way to deal with it was to stop building. Mr. Struble said the community would need to work together to find a solution to the problems.
Mr. Stuble responded to questioning that, to his understanding, modifying condition 1 as he proposed would not allow the development to begin construction until answers were found to the wastewater issues.
There was discussion about the anticipated wastewater data from Wade & Associates. Staff noted that the consultants were working on a study of an area from Iowa Street north of 6th Street to the SLT. This area was relevant to a number of items on tonight’s agenda. It was verified that there was currently no consultant assigned to study other areas of the City.
It was anticipated that the consultant’s data would provide more specific flow information than the numbers generated in 2003 and would answer questions about plant capacity and conveyance capacity.
Mr. Struble suggested specific wording for condition 2: “Submittal of downstream analysis shall be based upon AP76 of the City of Lawrence.” He said this language tied back to specific KDHE standards and provided a “finish line” for the downstream analysis that he felt Staff’s language did not.
Ms. Finger explained the reasons for Staff recommended conditions as presented:
· The language proposed was developed in conjunction with the City Manager’s Office and the Utilities Department and was agreed upon as the best way to address all existing issues.
· This language is based on the Subdivision Regulations statement that a downstream analysis must be provided and approved and must multiple factors into consideration as defined in the Code.
· This text is intended to avoid giving the developer false assurance that all they would need form this point was acceptance of easements and rights-of-way.
· This text is also meant to make clear to the City Commission that the project should not be considered “acceptable” when it appeared in their agenda.
· All parties must understand that there is some expectation that this property will not be able to be served with wastewater sewer systems at this time.
It was clarified that staff did not necessarily oppose the language proposed by the applicant, but this text had not been reviewed and agreed upon by all City Departments and it was unknown whether those departments would accept the change.
There was consensus on the need for a downstream study. The applicant continued to state that a clear reference to AP76 was needed to give them guidance as to how to proceed with the study.
Staff pointed out that AP76 stated that the downstream analysis extended to the point where the impact of the subject development was 10% or less of the total flow. This may prove to be inadequate and the City wanted to retain the ability to require a more extensive study if it was deemed necessary. Mr. Struble said the City always had that authority and the applicant would not oppose this requirement if it were found necessary in the future.
The Commission discussed deferring the item to Wednesday to allow additional discussion between the applicant and Staff. Staff said it was not likely that any new information would come out of additional discussions but agreed to ask City Engineers to attend on Wednesday to speak about the City’s position or to provide input on Mr. Struble’s proposed language.
Eichhorn said eventual wastewater sewer failures were predicted all over the City although no visible failures were present today. He said development should keep moving forward as well as possible with the understanding that all parties knew this was a huge issue.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Haase expressed surprise that no City Engineers were present to speak to this item and suggested the Commission was being asked to make a legislative decision. There was discussion about approving the plat referencing both 21-706d and AP76 and allow the City Commission to “make the call”. Staff pointed out that AP76 was not within the Planning Commission’s purview.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Eichhorn to defer the item to the Wednesday meeting and request City Staff representatives attend to explain their position.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Burress said he would likely support the City’s position if Staff representatives (engineers) were present on Wednesday to explain the reasoning behind their recommendation. If no City representatives were present to provide additional information, he would be more likely to side with the applicant.
Haase said the intent of Staff appeared to be to preclude any development of magnitude to go forward until more information was available about the City’s wastewater sewer capacity. Until this information was gathered, Staff was not able to make a proper recommendation.
It was discussed that data was being complied only for the KR2 (Kansas River 2) basin. The projects on tonight’s agenda were in the Baldwin Creek basin (BC1 & BC2) that was not currently being studied by Wade & Associates. It was questioned why the consultant was not directed to study all basins, since capacity problems had been identified all over the City.
There was additional discussion about the relationship between the overall Subdivision Regulations and AP76. It was verified that the developer’s concern with the proposed conditions was that, without reference to AP76, they had no clear direction about how far to extend their downstream analysis, what City official would review the analysis, and what basis would be used for review. Ms. Finger said the Commission could recommend a change to specify the City Engineer would review the study (if City Utilities Department is considered too vague). She said other Staff representatives would have the same information on Wednesday as was presented tonight regarding the extent and method of review for the study.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor as to defer the item to the Wednesday meeting and request City Staff representatives attend to explain their position.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
09/28/05
STAFF PRESENTATION
Utilities Engineer Philip Ciesielski was present to address the issue of the predicted City-wide wastewater sewer failures and how these concerns may impact development. Mr. Ciesielski said the primary point of concern was in the northwest area of the City, specifically the KR-2 sub-basin.
Wastewater sewer capacities were designed according to many factors, including development and population growth estimates identified in the City’s Master Plan. It had recently come to public attention that the amount of approved development in the KR-2 sub-basin area already exceeded development expectations and potential sewer failures were anticipated within a few years.
Mr. Ciesielski showed graphics defining the boundaries of the KR-2 basin and the number of single-family and duplex building permits issued for that area since 2000, which was the base year for the Master Plan. The amount of growth already permitted in the KR-2 basin (approximately 2600 dwelling units) was significantly beyond the Master Plan estimations for 2010 (1700 dwelling units). In addition to approved dwellings, this basin also contained a parcel of platted land that had not yet been issued a building permit but could eventually add up to 400 dwelling units.
It was clarified that that City Staff’s concerns about potential sewer failure were focused downstream before the flow hit the lift station at 5th & Kentucky Streets. It was discussed that developers were not given enough notice of imminent problems and that the information was an immediate, not incremental, discovery.
It was noted that today’s concerns were the result of past planning done without adequate caution and asked if today’s Staff recommendations were overly cautious as a result. Staff replied this could not be easily answered until more information was available, hopefully by the end of the year.
Burress said developers did not want to overload the City’s wastewater capacity, but they needed a clear process with reliable time limits. Mr. Struble said AP76 was a step in this direction. It was suggested that developers be allowed to follow AP76 for now as a test of its suitability for today’s wastewater situation. If AP 76 was found inadequate, there could be discussion in the future about how to improve regulations.
Dave Wagner, Assistant Director-Wastewater, said City Code Section 21-706d was typically applied in conjunction with AP76. Mr. Wagner said he would like a chance to review Mr. Struble’s proposed language with other Staff Departments to consider how this would impact plat requirements and whether all departments were reasonably satisfied that this wording provided adequate protection against overloading the existing wastewater system. There was discussion about deferring the item until October to allow for additional Staff review as described.
Mr. Ciesielski responded to questioning that moderate rain falls would be needed to study peak flow conditions and that this type of rainfall is typically seen in the Fall in this area.
Lawson asked if it were possible the 2003 Black & Veatch data may be found to be too conservative and the current wastewater sewer situation less serious than now supposed. Mr. Ciesielski said this was a possibility, although the 2003 numbers were as accurate as they could have been at that time, based on the type of studies that were ordered.
There was discussion about the estimated cost of various kinds of plans, as well as the parties that would cooperate in the preparation of these plans.
Haase asked if funds from other projects could be reallocated to finance sewer upgrades sooner than their scheduled 2015 date if the new information showed improvements were needed “right away.” Staff said this may be possible but they did not want to commit to that path before full information was available. It would be up to the City Commission to decide whether to re-prioritize the sewer upgrades if information showed that improvements were not needed immediately.
Krebs pointed out that, even if approved by the Planning Commission, no developments would get past the City Commission without an approved wastewater impact study, and those studies were unlikely to receive approval until the new reports were done. She asked if the City was effectively putting a moratorium on development until the Wade Associates studies were received. Staff said this was not the case, because wastewater impact studies were considered by the City Commission as part of a development’s public improvement plan. There was no reason the Planning Commission should delay looking at the lot distribution, lot layout, street design and other platting elements. Also, many platted lots were “ready to go.” Mr. Wagner said Staff would be happy to consider another prudent alternative, but so far one had not been found. This was the reason a case-by-case review of each development proposal was recommended.
It was verified that Wade Associates was contracted to study all basins contributing to the 5th & Kentucky Street list station. Mr. Wagner responded to questioning that recent heavy rains had created minor overflow problems at this lift station. He said that all overflow events were reported to KDHE and that these were not a common occurrence for Lawrence.
It was clarified that Staff had no direct opposition to using conditional language referencing AP76 as proposed by the applicant, but asked for additional time to study the implications of the proposed language. It was suggested that using Mr. Struble’s language regarding AP76 might limit the application of other regulations or give the false impression that other regulations did not apply.
Staff responded to questioning that development was not being “shut down” until the Wade & Associates study was complete.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Erickson to approve the Final Plat for Stoneridge East with conditions as recommended by Staff and without text modifications proposed by the applicant.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Mr. Struble brought it to the Commission’s attention that discussion to this point was focused on potential sewer failures in sub-basin KR-2, which did not contain the subject property involved in any of tonight’s agenda items. He said the Commission was mistakenly led to believe tonight’s proposals led to the 5th & Kentucky Street lift station, which was not the case.
Ms. Finger said Mr. Struble’s comments were correct, the subject property in this request was not contained in the KR-2 sub-basin. Staff’s concern with Agenda Items 1 & 3 was that no downstream analysis had been provided. The recommended conditions were intended reflect the Subdivision Regulation requirement to provide this data.
It was discussed why AP76 had been adequate conditional language in the past but was not questioned. Ms. Finger noted that the condition, as worded, was nearly verbatim for AP76. She explained that the requirement for a downstream analysis had not been consistently applied since 1999 and may have been the reason behind today’s concerns. Given recent events, the importance of applying this condition was made apparent. It was noted that Utilities Staff had attended the Planning Commission meeting in August to announce that they would begin enforcing this regulation more strictly.
Mr. Struble was asked to comment. He stated his appreciation for the opportunity to continue working with Staff but explained he was “not sure what to expect” from working with Mr. Ciesielski as a new Utilities Engineer. He did express concern at his inability to tell his client how much the downstream analysis would cost because an end-point to the study was not defined. He also asked what other factors may have been underestimated in the 2003 Master Plan.
It was suggested that AP76 was not within the Planning Commission’s purview. This policy language was under the authority of the governing body and the applicant could take up the issue of condition language, including AP76, when he addressed the City Commission.
Burress said he would support the motion on the floor, because the Code clearly stated the need for proof that a development could be supplied with adequate sewer capacity. However, he was not happy that there was no alternative to the situation currently facing the development community.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the Final Plat for Stoneridge East and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried 9-0-1, with Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting favor. Jennings abstained due to his absence from the Monday meeting where a significant amount of information was discussed. Student Commissioner Wright voted in favor.
The Commission moved at this point to Item 3.
ITEM NO 2A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GREEN TREE SUBDIVISION #2; NORTHEAST CORNER OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY & HARVARD ROAD (SLD)
PP-08-18-05: Preliminary Plat for Green Tree Subdivision #2, a replat of Lots 1-14, Block One, Lots 16-19, Block Two, Lots 1-7, 18-26, Block Three, Lots 1-17, Block Four, Green Tree Subdivision. This proposed 60-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 13.048 acres. The property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of George Williams Way and Harvard Road. Submitted by BG Consultants, Inc., for Fairway L.C., property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Lawson to approve the Preliminary Plat for Green Tree Subdivision #2, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC meeting minutes 09/26/05
ITEM NO 2B: FINAL PLAT FOR GREEN TREE SUBDIVISION #2; NORTHEAST CORNER OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY & HARVARD ROAD (SLD)
PF-08-26-05: Final Plat for Green Tree Subdivision #2, a replat of Lots 1-14, Block One, Lots 16-19, Block Two, Lots 1-7, 18-26, Block Three, Lots 1-17, Block Four, Green Tree Subdivision. This proposed 68-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 13.048 acres. The property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of George Williams Way and Harvard Road. Submitted by BG Consultants, Inc., for Fairway L.C., property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Lawson to approve the Final Plat for Green Tree Subdivision #2 and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Submittal of a downstream analysis for wastewater services and approval of this analysis by the City’s Utilities Department prior to scheduling of the Final Plat on the City agenda for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way;
2. Provision of a note on the face of the Final Plat restricting building and fences in drainage easements;
3. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations;
4. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and
5. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Copy of paid property tax receipt;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Provision of a master street tree plan.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC meeting minutes 09/26/05 & 09/28/05
ITEM NO 3: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PARK WEST GARDENS; 445 EISENHOWER DRIVE (PGP)
FDP-08-11-05: Final Development Plan for Park West Gardens. This proposed multiple-family residential development contains 70 Multiple Family Dwelling Units within nine buildings and approximately 5.652 acres. The property is generally described as being located at 445 Eisenhower Drive. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for Castle Rock, LC, property owner of record.
Pulled from Consent Agenda by Paul Werner on behalf of applicant.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant, explaining he had pulled this item from the Consent Agenda to address condition 3 regarding wastewater issues. He made several points:
· No wastewater problems have been identified during previous development stages and the Preliminary Development Plan was approved unanimously.
· The regulations discussed in relation to other agenda items (regarding the requirement for a downstream wastewater impact study) do not apply to this item because they are plat requirements and this project is beyond the plat stage.
· Staff’s written comments do not convey significant fears and give the impression that there are minor concerns that wastewater problems do not exist today but may develop in the future. The applicant feels this is not sufficient reason to “kill the project at this stage.”
· The recent information about City-wide wastewater sewer inadequacies does not identify this as a problem area (no ‘red line’ on the map here).
· The applicant has financed significant public improvements under the assumption that he would be allowed to develop his property in the manner proposed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Eichhorn said he shared the applicant’s concern that wastewater issues were not raised until recently. He said applicants had no way of knowing what hurdles lay ahead when they began development projects. He pointed out that there was currently no visible failure of the sewage system at this location so it might be assumed that enough capacity existed to accommodate this project.
Haase said the current situation was “a travesty”, but he was not willing to recommend approval for any construction without having the proper professional statement that new construction would not create a serious problem along the corridor.
The Commission discussed deferring the item to the Wednesday meeting and asking the City’s engineering staff to attend and speak to the issues at hand. It was asked what new information could be presented that would help the Commission make a better decision. Ermeling said she would like to know what triggered the realization that the City-wide sewage problem existed.
Haase said he would like to have a ranked list of the projects identified in the memo from Ms. Van Saun, showing in what order and at what time these development should or could proceed.
It was suggested that the City should bear the burden of proof, requiring City Staff to prove sewer capacity was inadequate to support projects on a case-by-case basis.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Eichhorn to defer the item to the Wednesday meeting.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
09/28/05
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff said the only new information related to this item was an explanation of the City-wide wastewater sewer concerns that were discussed in Item 1. It was verified that the focus of discussion during Item 1 was wastewater basin KR-2, which did not contain the land involved in this request.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Werner said there had been discussion about applying regulations requiring a downstream analysis as a typical plat condition. However, this proposal was past the platting stage and Staff had modified what he felt should be a plat condition to tie it to a building permit.
Mr. Werner said this Final Development Plan was an exact match for the approved Preliminary Development Plan and the property owner had already taken part in a benefit district for public improvements. This made it difficult for Mr. Werner to explain to his client why additional conditions were now being placed on the final stages of development approval.
Mr. Werner noted again that this property was not contained in the most problematic wastewater basin. He said the potential concerns of eventual problems at the lift station associated with this request were not sufficient grounds to delay this project and he asked the Commission to remove condition 3.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was acknowledged that City Staff had not been consistent in the application of the downstream analysis requirement at the Preliminary Plat and Development Plan stages for several years. However, the need for these studies was now recognized and the Commission did not believe any building permits would be issued without verification of capacity, regardless of applied conditions. The condition recommended by Staff would serve as notice to potential buyers that these issues may delay development.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Lawson to approve the Final Development Plan for Park West Gardens, subject to the following revised conditions:
a. Execution of a site plan performance agreement by the owners.
b. Submittal of public improvement plans to Public Works.
d. Submission of water line plans to the Utilities and Fire/Medical Departments.
e. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
2. Provide a draft copy of the 40’ x 40’ triangular public access and utility easement at the southwest corner of the property to the city for review and approval. Provide the Register of Deeds recorded Book and Page number for this easement on the Final Development Plan.
3.
Addition of the following General Note, “Building permits
shall not be issued until there is a determination by the Utilities Department
that there is adequate wastewater capacity to serve the development proposal.”
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Krebs to amend the motion on the floor to reinsert condition 3.
Motion carried 6-3-1, with Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris and Krebs in favor. Eichhorn, Lawson and Riordan were opposed and Jennings abstained. Student Commissioner Wright voted in favor.
Amended motion on the floor was to approve the Final Development Plan for Park West Gardens, subject to the following conditions:
a. Execution of a site plan performance agreement by the owners.
b. Submittal of public improvement plans to Public Works.
d. Submission of water line plans to the Utilities and Fire/Medical Departments.
e. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
2. Provide a draft copy of the 40’ x 40’ triangular public access and utility easement at the southwest corner of the property to the city for review and approval. Provide the Register of Deeds recorded Book and Page number for this easement on the Final Development Plan.
3. Addition of the following General Note, “Building permits shall not be issued until there is a determination by the Utilities Department that there is adequate wastewater capacity to serve the development proposal.”
Motion carried 7-2-1, with Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, and Krebs voting in favor. Lawson and Riordan were opposed and Jennings abstained. Student Commissioner Wright voted in favor.
The Commission moved at this point to Item 14.
PC meeting minutes 09/26/05
ITEM NO 4: FINAL PLAT FOR GLENWOOD ADDITION; INTERSECTION OF WAKARUSA DRIVE AND EISENHOWER DRIVE (LAP)
PF-08-31-05: Final Plat for Glenwood Addition. This proposed 12-lot single-family and one-lot multiple-family residential subdivision contains approximately 12.623 acres. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of Wakarusa Drive and Eisenhower Drive. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Glen Westervelt, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Lawson to approve the Final Plat for Glenwood Addition and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Submittal of a downstream analysis for wastewater services and approval of this analysis by the city’s Utilities Department prior to scheduling of the final plat on the City Commission’s agenda for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way;
2. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations;
3. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. A current copy of a paid property tax receipt;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. A completed Master Street Tree Plan in accordance with Section 21-708a.3.
4. A Temporary Utility Agreement;
5. Submittal of public improvement plans for the extension of water, sewer, and stormwater improvements;
6. Revision of the final plat to include the following:
a. Deletion of the 10-foot pedestrian easement at the southwest corner of Lot 7. Instead, notation of a 10-foot pedestrian easement should be included along the western and southern sides of Lot 7;
b. A note, stating that only one access point is allowed to Wakarusa Drive for Lot 13;
c. Indication, with hatch marks, of no access allowed onto Wakarusa Drive, except at approved point;
d. Notation of the Book and Page number for the cross access agreement related to providing access from Lot 1 to the access easement that will serve the multi-family portion of the site; and
e. Minimum elevations for building openings (MEBOs) for all lots (Lots 6, 7, 8, & 13) adjacent to drainage easements.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC meeting minutes 09/26/05
ITEM NO 5: FINAL PLAT FOR FALL CREEK FARMS 12TH PLAT; WEST OF KASOLD AND SOUTH OF PETERSON ROAD (LAP)
PF-08-27-05: Final Plat for Fall Creek Farms 12th Plat. This proposed 20-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 16.09 acres. The property is located west of Kasold and south of Peterson Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Sojac Land Company, L.C., property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Haase to defer this item to the October 2005 agenda per the applicant’s request.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
PC meeting minutes 09/26/05
ITEM NO 6: FINAL PLAT FOR MT. BLUE ADDITION NO. 3; SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY & EAST OF FRANKLIN ROAD (SLD)
PF-08-32-05: Final Plat for Mt. Blue Addition No. 3, a Replat of Lot 2 and 3, Mt. Blue Addition No. 2. This proposed Planned Industrial Development contains approximately 4.249 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, L.C., property owner of record.
This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda by the applicant’s representative.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
C.L. Maurer, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Maurer explained the applicant’s wish to have condition 1 removed, which required the submittal and approval of wastewater impact study.
Mr. Mauer said a wastewater impact study was approved for the original proposal, an industrial use with significantly higher wastewater demand than the new proposed use (storage facility).
It was estimated that the new proposed use would have a wastewater demand similar to that of a small home on its 4-acre lot.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Ms. Day responded to questioning that the Utilities Department believed this project would be allowable, but it was still recommended that all proposals be required to comply with the procedures set forth in the Subdivision Regulations. This was the reason behind the proposed conditions.
It was verified that all utilities are installed for the subject property.
Riordan said he agreed all projects should be regulated with consistency, but it seemed this property had met the requirements with the previous proposal. This lower-demand use was more suitable and he needed no additional information to support the removal of condition 1.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Haase to approve the Final Plat for Mt. Blue Addition No. 3 and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following revised conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
PC meeting minutes 09/26/05
ITEM NO 7: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MARION ADDITION NO. 5; 2221 W. 31ST STREET (SLD)
FDP-08-12-05: Revised Final Development Plan for Lot 1, Block 1, Marion Addition No. 5, a portion of the Target PCD. This proposed commercial development contains approximately 0.842 acres. The property is generally described as being located at 2221 W. 31st Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for G & P LC, Property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
C.L. Maurer, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Mauer explained the applicant’s wish to remove condition 2, which required submittal and approval of a wastewater impact study.
Mr. Mauer said this was an infill project in an existing commercial center and involved a significant reduction in wastewater demands. He noted it was a development plan, not a subdivision plat.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Ms. Day responded to questioning that Phil Ciesielski, Utilities Engineer, had given verbal approval to this project and would be forwarding a written comment to Staff.
Staff had no objection to removing the condition and said a written comment would be included in the project file that wastewater issues had been adequately addressed according to Mr. Ciesielski
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Ermeling to approve the Final Development Plan for Lot 1, Block 1, Marion Addition No. 5, subject to the following revised conditions:
1. Recording of the Final Plat prior to release of the Final Development Plan for issuance of a building permit;
2. Provision of a note on the face of
the Final Development Plan that states “Building permits shall not be
issued until there is a determination by the Utilities
Department that
there is adequate wastewater capacity to serve the development proposal;”
2. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to include the following changes on the face of the plan:
a. Relocate accessible parking stall to in front of building entrance per approval of Neighborhood Resources
b. Provision of a landscape plan per staff approval.
c. Provision of a note that states the southern drive-thru lane may be equipped with an ATM machine.
3. Provision of a photometric plan.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
PC meeting minutes 09/26/05
ITEM NO 8: FINAL PLAT FOR FAIRFIELD FARMS WEST ADDITION NO. 2; SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY BETWEEN O’CONNELL AND FRANKLIN ROADS (SLD)
PF-08-30-05: Final Plat for Fairfield Farms West Addition No. 2, a Replat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, of Fairfield Farms West Addition. This proposed three-lot office subdivision contains approximately 4.3122 acres. The property is generally described as being located south of K-10 Highway west of O’Connell Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.L.C., property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Lawson to approve the Final Plat for Fairfield Farms West Addition No. 2 and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submittal of a downstream analysis for wastewater services and approval of the analysis by the City’s Utilities Department prior to scheduling of the Final Plat on the City Commission’s agenda for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way;
2. Provision and approval of public improvement plans prior to the recording of the Final Plat with the Register of Deeds Office;
3. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations;
4. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and
5. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Copy of paid property tax receipt;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
c. Provision of a master street tree plan; and
d. Provision of street sign fees.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC meeting minutes 09/26/05
ITEM NO 9: FINAL PLAT FOR HOUT ADDITION; NORTHWEST CORNER OF N 1000 ROAD AND E 1500 ROAD (SLD)
PF-08-29-05: Final Plat for Hout Addition. This proposed one-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 6.003 acres. The property is generally described as being located at the northwest corner of N 1000 Road and E 1500 Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Jeffrey and Jaclyn Hout, property owners of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Lawson to approve the Final Plat for Hout Addition and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO 10: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: CHAPTER 8 TRANSPORTATION (BA)
CPA-2005-01: Hold public hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to Horizon 2020, Chapter 8 – Transportation. This chapter was considered at the May 25th Planning Commission meeting and referred to the Comprehensive Plans Committee (CPC) for additional review.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Ahrens introduced the item, a proposed amendment to the Transportation Chapter (Chpt. 8) of HORIZON 2020. The Planning Commission initiated the amendment and received a draft version prepared by the Comprehensive Plans Committee (CPC) in May 2005. The Commission returned the draft amendment to the CPC with specific direction for revisions based on Commission discussion and public comment. Mr. Ahrens said this direction has resulted in an overall chapter rewrite and the new version was presented tonight with a recommendation for approval from the CPC and Staff.
Mr. Ahrens said the chapter contained the same goals and objectives, but was rewritten to make the information more understandable and place items in different sections for clarity.
Tonight’s communications from the League expressed their wish for more language defining a residential collector. The CPC believed the existing language was adequate but did not oppose the revised text suggested by the League. The rest of the League’s comments dealt with the access policies section and asked for multiple text revisions to make the wording more stringent. Staff and the CPC recommended retaining the language as written to accommodate exceptions for redevelopment. Stringent regulations would make the exception process unreasonably complicated.
Mr. Ahrens responded to questioning that large numbers of exceptions were not expected, but Staff would like to retain the ability to make interpretations to allow exceptions where needed. The League’s proposed language would not allow exceptions at all.
Haase referenced recent concerns about the inadequacy of the City’s wastewater sewer system and said some felt this was brought about by underestimations of density projections. He asked if the density concepts shown on the Major Thoroughfares Map (MTM) were a reasonable expectation for supportable build-out. Staff said the MTM would likely be reexamined in the upcoming transportation plan update.
It was discussed that designating a needed east-west arterial in the northwest became more difficult the longer this decision was delayed. However, a number of factors prevented the simple designation of an extension of Peterson Road. It was suggested that this extension be put on the MTM as ‘placeholder’ until more studies were complete. It was noted that this had been attempted when the Planning Commission approved Transportation 2025 and identified three possible east-west arterials. These potential alignments had been removed from the MTM with City Commission approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
Dan Watkins commented on concerns about the need for an east-west arterial. He said the SLT was once designed with limited access points, including on at 1750 Road. He said commercial development was allowed in that area prematurely, effectively removing the 1750 Road access from the map. Mr. Watkins said he understood it would require a supermajority of the Planning Commission and County Commission to put the 1750 Road access back into the plan, but he hoped this option would be considered as a way to aid circulation.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was suggested the Commission begin with a basic motion for approval and discuss possible text revisions as amendments to the motion.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Erickson, seconded by Krebs to approve the Transportation Chapter update with revised language per discussion to follow.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Several amendments to the basic motion were made with no objection:
· Policy 2.1(a) – modify to state: ...promote and facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to public transportation
· Policy 4.1(c) – should be Policy 4.3(d)
· Policy 4.3(c) – reword to state: Minimum impacts on scenic, historical, archeological, sensitive habitats and environmentally sensitive areas
· Policy 5.1(e)– add to state: Have clear, easily read, unobstructed signage
· Policy 6.1(a) – reword to state: ...promote and facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to public transportation
· Policy 6.3 (c) – modify to state: …should be permitted access onto adjacent arterials only when projected traffic volume…
· Policy 6.4(c) - modify to state: …should be permitted access onto adjacent arterials only when projected traffic volume…
· Policy 8.1(d) – add to state: Monitor and modify transit service in response to future growth, changes in development patterns and users needs
· Policy 2.3(b) – reword to state: Direct access from a local street, public or private, to an arterial street or principal arterial street shall not be permitted unless applicant provides proof of hardship or burden. Advanced planning of neighborhood street patterns should be required to avoid local-arterial street connections.
· Policy 6.2 – add to state: Direct access from a local street, public or private, to an arterial street or principal arterial street shall not be permitted unless applicant provides proof of hardship or burden. Advanced planning of neighborhood street patterns should be required to avoid local-arterial street connections.
ACTION TAKEN
Revised motion on the floor was to approve the Transportation Chapter update with text modifications as described above.
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Ermeling to amend the motion to include modification to the MTM to add a principle arterial from the western terminus of Peterson Road extending west to but not connecting to the SLT.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Burress said he supported the proposed amendment in concept, but this concept had been forwarded to the governing bodies already and had been negated. He asked if it was the intent of the amendment to reintroduce this idea into the governing bodies’ discussion. Haase said there were new members on the City Commission that may be more supportive of the east-west arterial concept than the previous body had been.
It was discussed whether the Commission should attempt to re-introduce all three potential arterial ‘placeholders’ as recommended in 2004. It was noted that all three options proposed in 2004 ended at Queens Road and most of that area was now developed.
Haase verified his intent to preclude connection of the new east-west arterial to the SLT because he believed this would reduce the arterial’s function, which was to keep traffic off W. 6th Street.
The motion to amend was revised without objection to include downgrading 1750 Road to a minor arterial.
There was discussion about the Peterson Road extension running through the large nature reserve in that area. Haase said he believed that directing the Peterson Road extension southward would prevent a violation of the City’s agreement with the Lichtwardts. He added that the Peterson Road extension would be a more functional road with fewer negative environmental impacts than either of the other suggested arterial alignments. Burress suggested mitigations might be found to address ecological impacts.
The question was called without objection.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to amend the original motion to include modification to the Major Thoroughfares Map to add a principle arterial from the western terminus of Peterson Road extending west to but not connecting to the SLT.
Motion carried 8-1, with Burress, Eichhorm, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Krebs voted in opposition.
Amended motion on the floor was to approve the Transportation Chapter update with text modifications as identified and forward it to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Recess as Planning Commission, convene as Metropolitan Planning Organization
PC meeting minutes 09/26/05
ITEM NO 11: TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS (BA)
Consider applications for Transportation Enhancement projects to be submitted to KDOT later this year.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Ahrens explained the Transportation Enhancement program provided Federal funding for non-traditional transportation-related projects. The program designated 12 eligible activities that could receive funding. These were generally related to natural, scenic, aesthetic and environmental transportation issues.
Staff identified three proposals within the guidelines of the Transportation Enhancement program:
The Commission was asked to act in their capacity as the MPO to endorse the proposed projects and give the Chair authority to sign a letter of application to the Transportation Enhancement committee on behalf of the MPO.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
There was discussion about the cost of rehabilitating and maintaining brick streets. It was commented that brick streets often created safety concerns during inclement weather but also served as a de facto traffic calming element.
Staff noted that the rehabilitated brick streets would be more durable but that cost estimates were not yet available.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Harris to endorse the Transportation Enhancement proposal as presented and authorize the Chair to sign letters of support on behalf of the MPO to accompany grant applications.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
ADJOURN as MPO, reconvene as Planning Commission
PC meeting minutes 09/26/05
ITEM NO 12: TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 21, CITY CODE (LMF/DC)
TA-07-04-05: Consider Text Amendment to Chapter 21 of the City Code which would eliminate government takings for street or other public purposes as a cause of any setback or required off-street parking violation.
ITEM NO 13: TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20, CITY CODE (LMF/DC)
TA-07-03-05: Consider Text Amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code which would eliminate government takings for street or other public purposes as a cause of any setback or required off-street parking violation.
Items 12 & 13 were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Finger explained the two proposed amendments to the joint City/County Subdivision Regulations were related to the ongoing legal issue of governmental takings and variances, following Judge Malone’s ruling on lot conformance following the 6th Street road improvements.
Staff outlined the key points of the proposed amendments as stated in the Staff Report. Ms. Finger said both text amendments were focused on existing developed property that, through no action of the property owner, were made non-compliant or non-conforming. It was verified that these amendments were meant to apply only to existing developed land. Undeveloped properties were not impacted by these amendments. The Commission expressed concern that the text, as written, was not clear on this point.
Meeting extended 30 minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chief Counsel Sally Howard from KDOT spoke about the cooperation between KDOT and the City to share in the acquisition costs of the 6th Street property and to design the streets to require as little new right-of-way as possible. She said it was mutually believed that the setbacks of developed properties along 6th Street would not be impacted when additional right-of-way was taken for road improvements. However, Judge Malone’s ruling contradicted this belief and was the basis of the proposed text amendments.
Chief Counsel Howard explained the proposed language was intended to clarify that, when additional right-of-way was taken for a public improvement, the existing developed land would not be made non-compliant or non-conforming because of changes to setbacks. The developed property would be legally allowed to retain development as if the existing setback matched the platted setback.
It was verified that these amendment did not apply to land that was platted but not yet developed. Burress suggested a “plain language” statement to avoid confusion on this point.
Chief Counsel Howard suggested the City consider making these amendments retroactive. Ms. Finger said amendments were typically only prospective but the Commission had the ability to recommend otherwise if they chose.
Dan Watkins spoke on behalf of the Bauer Farms developer and several land owners along the 6th Street corridor that had granted additional right-of-way to KDOT with the understanding it would not effect their setbacks. Mr. Watkins said his clients supported the proposed amendments but he said discussion of this and associated issues should not end here.
Mr. Watkins described the variable width of right-of-way along the 6th Street corridor and asked the Commission to consider removing the “super setback” requirement of 50’ from the regulations.
Jane Eldredge stated her support of the proposed amendment and the suggestion that they be retroactive. She suggested January 1, 2002 as a retroactive effective date to precede any takings involving KDOT.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff responded to questioning that the City did not currently have the ability to create the maps Mr. Watkins had requested because we do not have GIS data on the new 6th Street right-of-way or alignment but she had spoken to the City Engineer and this task was underway.
There was discussion about W. 6th Street as a “monster corridor” and how this created pedestrian hazards.
It was suggested that the Commission give careful consideration before changing the wide corridor concept, since this idea was generated at a time when Commissions at all levels agreed on the desire to plan for and reserve right-of-way for a gateway design on W. 6th Street. There needs to be further discussion about how this intent has changed and how gateway planning relates to the concept of New Urbanism.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 12
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Lawson to approve the Text Amendment to Chapter 21 of the City Code as presented and forward it to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation, subject to the following condition:
Motion carried 8-1, with Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Eichhorn voted in opposition.
Meeting extended to 11:00 without opposition.
Item 13
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Harris to approve the Text Amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code as presented and forward it to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following condition:
Motion carried 8-1, with Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Eichhorn voted in opposition.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
Eichhorn explained he had voted in opposition because he was apprehensive about recommending approval with an open-ended retroactive effective date.
PC meeting minutes 09/26/05
MISC. ITEM NO. 1A: RECONSIDERATION OF REZONING REQUEST: A TO B-2; SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 56 AND 59 (PGP)
Z-04-30-05: Reconsideration of a request to rezone a tract of land approximately 34.35 acres from A (Agricultural) District to B-2 (General Business) District. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of Highway 56 and Highway 59. Submitted by Joseph Daniels, Jr., for Joseph Daniels, Sr., property owner of record. This item was returned to the Planning Commission by the Board of County Commissioners on August 22, 2005.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a rezoning request sent back to the Planning Commission by the County Commission. He noted that the Planning Commission had acted in opposition to Staff’s recommendation and unanimously recommended denial (7-0) of the rezoning request. The County Commission returned the item to the Planning Commission for potential reconsideration before they (the County Commission) took possible action to overturn the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
The Planning Commission had three options for dealing with the returned item:
Regardless of the Planning Commission’s action (or inaction), the County Commission would need only a simple majority vote to approve the item when it came back to their agenda.
The Commission was provided with minutes from their own meeting and the County Commission meeting, an email from KDOT and other information related to their original consideration. Also included was a letter from the League of Women Voters expressing continued concerns about the proposal.
Staff was asked to address the issue of public benefit if the request were approved. Mr. Patterson said the proposed development would provide relocation opportunities for businesses that would be displaced by the upcoming highway improvements. Haase said the rezoning might well be appropriate at a later date, but suggested it would be prudent to put off rezoning until after KDOT purchased the right-of-way that would be needed to accomplish the highway improvements.
Haase spoke about the increased cost of land following rezoning and expressed his intent to preclude KDOT paying the higher cost at the taxpayers’ expense. He asked if any significant harm would be done by delaying the rezoning. Staff said the delay may hurt the applicant’s ability to plan adequately for the new business location and it was possible a denial at this stage would negatively taint rezoning considerations in the future.
Haase questioned Mr. Patterson at length about the probability of rezoning increasing property values and sale prices. Mr. Patterson said this was a likely result, but KDOT stated in their email that they intended to purchase right-of-way at a cost commensurate to the “highest and best use” of the land, regardless of the actual zoning at the time of purchase.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Joe Daniels spoke on behalf of his father, the applicant and property owner. Mr. Daniels presented a map provided by KDOT showing the approximate location of the new highway interchange.
Mr. Daniels said a smaller portion of the subject property was approved for rezoning previously but the area was never platted so the rezoning was not recorded and eventually expired. He explained a larger piece of property was proposed for rezoning today because a significant but as-yet undetermined amount of land would become right-of-way for the interchange.
Mr. Daniels said Staff’s recommendation for approval supported his belief that the proposal met all the requirements for rezoning and should be approved.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Burress noted that the KDOT communication did not specifically state support or opposition to the proposal. Mr. Patterson said this was typically the case, as KDOT preferred to let communities make their own development decisions.
There was discussion about public comment made at the original hearing in support of the request based on social and economic value to the community.
There was also discussion about limiting growth in this overall area based on the nodal plan, which allotted 15,000 square feet for commercial uses at this intersection.
Mr. Daniels responded to questioning that his father had not yet been approached by KDOT regarding the purchase price of his land.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Haase spoke again about the increase in purchase price inherent in granting rezoning. He said this impact could be significant, even to the point of jeopardizing KDOT projects (he referenced a specific instance in Wichita, KS). He said he did not oppose the proposal, but was concerned about timing and about the amount of land involved in the request when the intersection was limited to a certain amount of commercial square footage.
It was suggested that, if this rezoning were to be seriously considered, the Commission should initiate public hearings to “re-think” the amount of commercial square footage allowed at this intersection. Haase said the Commission had ample authority to deny the request because the proposal would exceed the current commercial limitations for the intersection.
Burress discussed the negative social cost of acting in contradiction to the Comprehensive Plan, saying “if we can’t control the size of this commercial node then where can we [exert control]?” He suggested Staff’s interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan would be applicable to all commercial nodes, creating a lack of control over commercial development at all nodes.
Krebs stated she would recuse herself from this item because she was not present at the original hearing.
Krebs left at 11:00 p.m.
Lawson said Haase made compelling arguments for putting off rezoning for a time, but he believed this area would be well-suited for commercial development as proposed at a later date and he was not confidence that the Commission would go through with that intent when the time came. Lawson said the County Commission would be in a better position to approve the rezoning and he hoped they would “do what needs to be done”.
Extend 5 minutes with no opposition.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn to take no action on the returned rezoning request.
Motion died for lack of second.
Motioned by Lawson to reverse the Commission’s previous recommendation and approve the rezoning of 34.35 acres from A to B-2 and forwarding it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the July 2005 Staff Report.
Motion died for lack of second.
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Haase to reaffirm the Commission’s previous recommendation for denial, based on the same findings of fact.
Motion carried 7-1, with Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris and Riordan voting in the affirmative. Lawson voted in opposition.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
Lawson stated his hope that the County Commission would focus their consideration on the need for commercial opportunities at this intersection for a number of reasons discussed at the July 2005 meeting.
Ermeling said she agreed about the commercial needs of this area, but she felt it was important to modify the Comprehensive Plan first instead of taking actions contrary to the Plan.
Burress commented that he would be inclined to support a revised rezoning request that was within the size limitations designated in HORIZON 2020 and did not propose to rezone land that would likely be taken over for right-of-way by KDOT in the future.
Riordan also stated that a smaller request might be looked upon more favorably.
Mr. Daniels said the application met all the written regulations and had received the support of Staff. He suggested the Commission was putting the burden of their own shortcomings on the applicant.
PC meeting minutes 09/26/05
MISC. ITEM NO 1B: ESTABLISH SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR BAUER FARMS DEVELOPMENT REQUEST (LMF)
Staff stated that the Monday agenda meeting in October would be dedicated to this hearing.
MISC. ITEM NO. 2: OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business to come before the Board.
11:10 p.m. - Recess until 6:30 P.M. on September 28, 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
September 28, 2005 – reconvened at 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs, Jennings, Lawson, Riordan and Student Commissioner Wright
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Ahrens, Day, Patterson, Pool and Saker
______________________________________________________________________
COMMUNICATIONS
ITEM 1: Final Plat for Stoneridge East; Southeast Corner of W. 6th & Stoneridge Drive
Item 17: Rescinding of Minimum Maintenance Road Designation
General:
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUESTS
· Jennings said he would abstain from the vote for items that were discussed at length at the Monday meeting
· Haase said he would recuse himself from Item 16
· Eichhorn said he would recuse himself from Item 17
The Commission moved from this point to Item 1.
ITEM NO 14: 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. This item was deferred from the 8/24/05 meeting.
It was verified that no Baldwin City planning representatives were present so a joint meeting was not called.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the item, a request to allow extension of an existing telecommunications tower to accommodate co-location of a new antenna. She noted the existing tower’s location close to the city limits of Baldwin City and referenced the communication from Baldwin City planning representatives outlining Baldwin City’s standards for new telecommunications towers. It was verified that this request did not include the construction of a new tower but the extension of an existing tower that would not involve modification of the existing base structure.
Ms. Day said Baldwin City representatives had expressed satisfaction with the information provided stating that, if structural failure occurred, the tower would collapse with the subject site. This addressed Baldwin City’s primary concern and they had stated no further objection to the proposal.
Following the study session, the applicant was asked to be prepared to address questions about property maintenance.
Staff recommended approval of the request with conditions as stated in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
John Underwood from Sprint spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Underwood stated agreement with the Staff recommendation.
It was discussed that the approved site plan for the tower stated a height of 165’, while the height of the constructed tower was 175’, but that this applicant was not responsible fro original construction of the tower. The proposed extension to 195’ would not trigger an FAA requirement for lighting, as it was still under the 200’ FAA limit.
Burress commented on the unsightly appearance of the existing tower and asked about the life expectancy of such a tower. Mr. Underwood said towers could last indefinitely with proper care and maintenance. He responded to questioning that extension and co-location as proposed would cost about $75,000. Replacement of the existing pole with a monopole tower would add $60,000 to that cost. He noted that the applicant did not own the tower and did not have authority to remove it.
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 Lawson, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the Conditional Use Permit for expansion of the telecommunications tower to 195’ and to allow co-location of additional antennae and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised site plan to show all distances from North, South, East, and West Property Lines.(Douglas County Zoning Regulations Section 19-4.31(d)3) & (d)1;
2. Provision of a revised site plan to show building and fence height on sheet C 3;
3. Provision of a note on the face of the site plan that states: “Minimum maintenance shall be provided for the property to include mowing and vegetative control during the growing season;” and
4. Prior to release of the site plan for issuance of a building permit the property shall be mowed and proper pruning of obstructive vegetation shall be provided.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the item, a request to allow co-location of telecommunications antenna on an existing building.
One area resident had contacted Staff with concerns about television interference and harmful emissions. This resident had been satisfied with Staff’s explanation that these negative impacts had not been experienced with similar antennae installations.
Staff recommended approval of the project with conditions as stated in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSION
The Commission had no additional questions or comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Jennings to approve a Use Permitted upon Review for co-location on existing wireless tower and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
Haase was recused
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Pool introduced the item, a request to allow a landfill facility outside the Lawrence city limits but within the Urban Growth Area (UGA). The subject area is zoned for heavy industrial uses and currently contains one residential structure, a barn and a former chemical facility.
Ms. Pool explained the two proposed phases and said the new landfill would contain only coal by-products generated by the Lawrence Energy Center located adjacent to the subject property. This landfill would be approved and monitored by KDHE, it would not be open to the public, and was expected to serve the Lawrence Energy Center needs for approximately 26 years.
Staff recommended approval with conditions as stated in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Chad Luce, Westar Energy, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Luce gave a presentation on the proposal, explaining the process of transporting by-products from the Energy Center to the landfill areas. He said KDHE had done ground/soil studies of the area after the chemical facility closed and had determined the land was safe and suitable for the proposed use.
Mr. Luce said small sections of the subject property were located within the 500-year floodplain. These sections would be filled with compacted soils and would not be used for landfill purposes.
It was clarified that KDHE would issue a Bureau of Waste Management permit upon CUP approval.
Mr. Luce provided information about final closure of the landfill, including reclamation of the land, after its expected lifespan of 26 years. He said the Energy Center was also expected to reach the end of its useful life at that time, and both facilities would be closed.
There was discussion about air quality testing, road dust mitigation and other efforts to limit the impact of the facility.
Several questions were addressed:
· The existing landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2007.
· If this proposal is denied, the Energy Center will have to find another location for its landfill.
· It will be more expensive to transport by-products to another location and will increase heavy truck traffic on County roads.
· The Energy Center facility is not equipped to produce recyclable ash.
· The Energy Center currently uses coal with low sulfur content and put lime into the by-product to reduce odor.
PUBLIC HEARING
Ed Shockley, adjacent property owner, said the existing landfill had been approved with conditions similar to those being recommended today. He testified that the majority of conditions intended to reduce environmental impacts (dust control, air and water quality testing) had not been enforced until only recently. Mr. Shockley said he had reported in 1997 to several City departments the failure of the current landfill to comply with conditions, but no efforts were made to meet conditions until 2004.
Mr. Shockley showed several pictures of the existing landfill, noting piles of gravel-like fill instead of the “soupy” mixture that was described when the landfill was approved in 1997. He also showed pictures of dust settled on his vehicle and spoke about the need to ensure conditions were enforced.
Rev. William Dooley, recent area resident, said he bought his new home under the assumption that the area would retain its quiet character. He expressed concern that the proposed landfill would devalue his property and create significant negative environmental/health impacts.
Andrew Johnson, also a recent area resident, said he purchased his home with similar assumptions. He said this landfill was proposed too close to existing residential development and should be moved further away from the city.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about health impacts on children in the area and said this proposal was entirely out of character for the area. He said he had noticed the power plant in the vicinity but had not known that the plant owned the subject property. The subject property had appeared, when he bought his home, to be used as pasture land and he had assumed it would stay that way.
Mr. Johnson asked how this proposal fit the Golden Factors and suggested the only benefit of allowing the landfill at this location was an economic boon to the applicant. He said the N. Michigan area was newly developed and he was sure developers and home-buyers had not been aware that this proposal was coming.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Luce said he was also an area resident and he appreciated the neighbors’ concerns. He showed on the map that the nearest residence was about Ľ-mile from the subject property and expressed the applicant’s willingness to take additional steps as directed by the Commission to mitigate odor, dust and noise concerns (operate during specified hours, plant vegetative screening, apply dust control products).
Mr. Luce said Mr. Shockley was correct that conditions placed on the 1997 CUP had not been followed until recently. He said this was due to a number of factors, but the applicant had made every effort since discovering the oversight to become fully compliant.
Paul Graves from KDHE spoke at the Commission’s request about permitting and quality testing that would be done to verify the operation’s continued compliance with state standards.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was discussed that denying the application would force the landfill to locate elsewhere, increasing truck trips on area roads by potentially 4000-5000 trips per year. This would increase the applicant’s costs by millions of dollars per year, and would also increase Township costs for road repair and maintenance.
There was discussion about factors either in place today or ones that could be added to limit the landfill’s impact, including:
· Smaller cells open for shorter periods of time to reduce air-borne ash;
· Repeated cell testing;
· Plans to continue use of high-grade coal with low sulfur content;
· Provision of compliance reports to City departments and KDHE;
· Provision of a reclamation plan for the existing and proposed new landfill sites;
· Cell lining;
· Use of bottom ash on top of cell to reduce air-borne ash as cell contents dry;
· Air monitoring to ensure compliance with national air quality standards;
· Application of a chemical dust control substance OR chip–and-seal on heavily-trafficked roads; and
· Growth of vegetative screening (evergreens and red cedar)
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Krebs to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Lawrence Energy Center Industrial Landfill and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following revised conditions:
1. Documentation of a Bureau of Waste Management Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment to operate the coal by-product landfill;
2. Documentation of an approved Floodplain Development Permit from the Douglas County Zoning and Codes Division;
3. Documentation of an approved Floodplain Fill Permit from the Kansas Department of Agriculture's Division of Water Resources;
4. Documentation of an approved Historic Structures Study from the Kansas State Historical Society; and
5. Revision of the site plan to include the following:
a. Inclusion of a note, indicating Southwestern Bell will be contacted once all service in the subject area has been disconnected in order to allow for adequate time to remove/abandon facilities;
b. Revision of Note #2 to state the following: "Normal operations will occur weekdays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.";
c. Deletion of the following note: "Extended hours may be used during heavy load periods;"
d. Provision of a vegetative screen along the southern edges of the haul road. Specifically, evergreen trees should be utilized in these locations;
e. Inclusion of a landscape schedule, per Section 19A-4(10) of the County Zoning Regulations;
f. Inclusion of a note, stating the Nuisance and Dust Control Program will be in effect with the new landfill site;
g. Inclusion of a note, stating that news media will be notified if the type of coal burned at the Lawrence Energy Center changes from what is currently utilized at the plant; and
h. Inclusion of a note, stating magnesium chloride will be used as a dust suppression agent for the haul road and landfill site as needed.
Motion carried 9-0-1, with Haase recused and Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
Eichhorn was recused
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Ahrens introduced the item, a request to rescind the minimum maintenance designation for a section of E 1400 Road on the boundary between Willow Springs and Palmyra Townships. The proposal was initiated by the property owner and supported by both associated Townships.
Mr. Ahrens explained that Staff currently had no criteria by which to review these kinds of applications, and it had become standard practice for Staff to support the position of the Township and the County Engineer. Traffic counts were sometimes factored into Staff’s review as well, but no traffic counts were available for the subject road.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Joe Caldwell, Bartlett & West Engineers, spoke on behalf of the applicant, saying Willow Springs Township had agreed to be responsible for maintenance of this section of boundary road.
Mr. Caldwell said it was understood that concerns were raised about sight distance and distance between access points, but these were engineering and design issues that did not have to be settled tonight.
Mr. Caldwell responded to questioning that the parcels along this section of E1400 were 5-acre lots based on a plat of survey.
PUBLIC HEARING
Heather Eichhorn, area resident, expressed concern that approval of this request would, in effect, create a road that did not currently exist. The roadway was designated on maps and easements existed, but the actual land contained no evidence of an actual road. She said the subject section of road was currently used as a soybean field adjacent to the west of her family’s property.
Ms. Eichhorn said the intent of the request was not to connect roadways but to allow development of multiple 5-acre tracts along a road that would function as a cul-de-sac. She was concerned at the impact of this amount of development on the natural environment and rural character of the area.
Ms. Eichhorn referenced the moratorium on rural building permits, saying she investigated at the County Courthouse how many parcels were permitted for development before the moratorium was in place. She was disturbed to find that there were several lots ready for development following the curve of 460 Road.
Pam Maylan, area resident, said her primary concern was limiting access points on the existing rural highway. She said the re-routed Highway 59 would develop one mile to the west, with 460 Road as one of four major interchanges. If this request were approved, it would create three access points within 1320’, which did not follow the proposed access management standard for one access point every 1320’.
Keana Griffin, area resident, said the right-of-way for E. 1400 Road extended north past her property “apparently into nowhere.” She asked if the road would actually be constructed to intersect the nearby private drive (noting arterial-private street intersections are not allowed by Code) and into the wooded are to the north.
Allan Miller, area property owner said he bought his land with the intent of building. He was concerned that the change in road designation and following development would make his own land a “catch basin” for all the traffic generated on the applicant’s property.
Mr. Miller said he also lived in the area and extending 650 Road would require reconstruction of a section of his driveway. Widening 650 Road would encroach on his septic system and eliminate a number of mature trees that served as a privacy element.
Grant Eichhorn, area resident, said he shared the concerns of other speakers, but wanted to bring up a point that had been missed. He asked if the Township Boards were given de facto control over rural development decisions by allowing them to guide decisions such as this.
Mr. Eichhorn said HORIZON 2020 spoke about ensuring adequate access to/from development, but this proposal would create the intersection of a local road with a principal arterial, which was expressly prohibited in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Eichhorn said there was significant community support for the access management standards proposed by the County Engineer, but development was being allowed to get ahead of these standards. He said “the 5-acre exemption is becoming the 5-acre rule”, and that no one had adequately studied how lot divisions have been done and how much it will cost the community to fix past bad planning.
In closing, Mr. Eichhorn said the development that would be permitted by approving this request would function as a subdivision and should be subject to the Subdivision Regulations.
Betty Lichtwardt said she understood a County resolution had been passed requiring tracts to have a minimum of 10 acres in order to develop, even if ownership was transferred.
Ms. Lichtwardt said this case raised an interesting point because if the developer paid for road improvements, he may later make a claim of financial burden in order to get a development approved without platting. She agreed with previous statements that this road was not intended to “go anyplace”, so it was obviously meant to serve a future subdivision.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Caldwell asked to clarify points raised in the public hearing:
§ Even if the minimum maintenance designation were reversed, would clearly not extend into or across private property.
§ It was assumed proper precautions were taken when Mr. Miller’s septic system was installed to ensure the system was not placed within the public right-of-way, but that surveys would be done to ascertain overlaps when the time came.
§ The property owner intends to apply restrictive covenants to preserve as much of existing vegetation as possible.
§ Access to 650 Road would remain in its existing location based on existing right-of-way to for the road to the east.
Staff agreed with Mr. Caldwell about the improbability of the subject road being constructed to encroach on to private property. He noted that the request specified a limited length of roadway.
Mr. Ahrens responded to questioning that the three potential access points would be closer than recommended by the proposed County access standards, but these standards were not yet enacted. Also, the sight distance was judged to be acceptable for the traffic speed and volumes traveling in this area. If a major east-west arterial were constructed in this area, it would have to be designed to accommodate increased volumes and speeds.
There was discussion about the subject section of road functioning as a cul-de-sac in excess of 1320’ and the difference between a cul-de-sac and a dead-end road. Mr. Ahrens explained that, regardless of function, the subject road section was not regarded as a cul-de-sac because right-of-way existed beyond the functional “end” of the road all the way to Louisiana Street.
It was established that the multiple 5-acre tracts along the subject road section were created through a plat of survey. Planning Staff has no way of tracking when these kinds of divisions are made.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was discussed that there were a number of existing but un-constructed and unrecognized County roads and it was suggested that cases like this one gave other potential developers incentive for finding similar roads for similar purposes (rural development). It was discussed that, if right-of-way existed (as it did here), it was understood that a road was ‘planned’ for sometime in the future.
The Commission discussed making a statement against allowing development on these terms by denying this request. Jennings said it was unfortunate but apparent that property owners could profit more by developing their land than by dedicating it to agricultural uses. He said the proposal was not attractive, but he saw no regulatory basis for denying the request.
It was suggested that the functional cul-de-sac in excess of 1320’ might be a legitimate basis for denial. Staff pointed out that this property was exempt from the Subdivision Regulations, so the maximum cul-de-sac length limitation was not applicable.
Ermeling said she was not comfortable supporting the request because this policy permitted Townships to dictate development through road designations. Burress added that the Commission should not rescind minimum maintenance road designations solely for the purpose of permitting development. He responded to questioning that this did not have to be a policy (because the Planning Commission did not make policy) but should be common practice as an interpretation of HORIZON 2020’s statements about discouraging development in rural areas.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Harris to deny the request to the rescind minimum maintenance road designation for a section of E 1400 Road, with findings of fact based on Burress’ comments about interpretations of HORIZON 2020 regarding rural development.
Motion carried 7-2-1, with Burress, Riordan, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris and Krebs voting in favor. Jennings and Lawson voted in opposition. Eichhorn was recused and Student Commissioner Wright voted in favor.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a request to construct a 1-story, 1500 square foot building on a currently vacant lot for use as a martial arts studio. He noted that the subject property was partially located in the 100-year floodplain and would have to follow development guidelines and regulations for developing in that area.
Mr. Patterson described where parking would be provided for the new building, noting this was the only concern reported by existing area businesses. He said the proposed use carried a requirement for 10 parking spaces and the applicant would provide 19 spaces, including 1 handicapped accessible space and 6 bicycle spaces.
Staff recommended approval with conditions as listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
C.L. Maurer, Landplan Engineering, was present on behalf of the applicant. He stated no opposition to the Staff recommendation.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional questions or comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Krebs to approve the Use Permitted upon Review for New Horizons Tae Kwon Do Studio and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement;
2. Provide the following revisions to the UPR site plan:
a. Reflect the correct position of the 100 year floodplain on this property;
b. Show the existing CATV cable line which continues east along the south property line and then north along the east property line;
c. A shared cross access easement for the shared driveway with the property to the east needs to be obtained and graphically shown. Show the recorded book and page number for the cross access easement;
d. For Site Summary, change “Lot 4” to “Lot 6B”;
e. General Note referencing the FEMA FIRM Panel and date;
f. General Note that “A revised site plan is required for review and approval prior to construction of future improvements;” and
g. Dimension of parking aisle, west of the existing 7 parking spaces.
3. An approved flood plain development permit will be required prior to any grading or fill placed on the property and prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Pool introduced the items, a rezoning and preliminary plat for a 41-lot single-family residential development with a density of 4 dwelling units per acre.
Ms. Pool said the development was proposed with a single vehicular access point to Eldredge Street and with two drainage easements to be maintained by the Homeowner’s Association. She noted that sidewalks were provided on both sides of the local streets and between lots 18 & 19 to Monterey Way.
Staff recommended approval of both items with conditions as listed in the Staff Reports.
APPLICANT PRESENTATON
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, described the history of this request, explaining the original intent to request RS-5 zoning, which would have been available if the new Zoning Ordinance had been adopted. There was then an attempt to apply PRD zoning with access to Monterey Way, but this was not possible because of grading and existing gas lines. Mr. Werner said the proposed RS-2 zoning was seen as the most reasonable option to achieve the applicant’s intent.
PUBLIC HEARING on rezoning only
James Williams, 432 Eldredge, made several comments in opposition to the proposal:
· There is already a problem of traffic using Eldredge to reach Hy-Vee without traveling on 6th Street.
· There is crumbling curbing in this area and he has been told that curb repairs are not within the City’s budget at this time. Why is the City considering developing more land in this area when “you can’t afford to maintain [the development] you have?”
· The Homeowner’s Association for his neighborhood was never established so there is no covenant enforcement.
· The proposed density of this development is too high and will generate too much traffic on area streets.
· The applicant should look at building a bridge over the gas line to provide another access point to the subject property.
Robert Scoular, 3920 Overland Drive, said he was pleased to see homes proposed for the subject property, but he was concerned that the construction was proposed by the same developer who built his own home. Mr. Scoular described poor conditions in his own neighborhood, including front yards settling significantly and standing water in rear yards.
Mike Bouring, area resident, said he did not oppose the development but wondered if any consideration had been given to using the subject property for a park or greenspace. He understood it may not be possible for the City to obtain the land, but it would be nice if at least some attempt could be made to preserve the standing line of trees at the south end of his neighborhood (adjacent to the subject property).
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Werner stated that Seele Way had been stubbed with the intent that this property would be the final piece of development. He said the density of RS-2 zoning fit the area and was less dense than existing duplexes along Overland Drive.
Mr. Werner said Neighborhood/Homeowner’s Associations were created differently today than when adjacent developments were established, with more interaction with inspectors and enforcement. This was no comfort to existing developments, but would provide security for new neighborhoods.
Meeting extended 1 hour
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was clarified that the developer paid for the construction of new public streets, which then became the City’s maintenance responsibility. It was also discussed that the Planning Commission had no authority over building standards.
Burress asked what options had been considered for improving connectivity of this development. Staff said grading and existing utility lines made connection to Monterey Way financially unfeasible.
Staff was asked to comment on the concerns expressed about additional traffic on Eldredge. Ms. Pool said the traffic study determined a development of 51 lots (based on a previous request, this proposal has 41 lots) would have minimal impact on existing traffic conditions.
Mr. DeVictor said the Parks & Recreation Department made an attempt in the past to purchase the subject property for parkland, but the property owner had other plans for the land.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 19A
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Jennings to approve the rezoning of 10.281 acres from A to RS-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
Item 19B
Motioned by Jennings, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the Preliminary Plat for Dolittle Subdivision, based on the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, the proposed amendment to Chapter 9 (Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces) of the Comprehensive Plan. He referenced a letter from Bonnie Johnson, chair of the committee that drafted the proposed amendment, who could not be present tonight. Ms. Johnson’s letter summarized revisions made to the chapter per Planning Commission direction earlier in the year. Her letter also addressed revisions that were considered but not included in the current draft.
PUBLIC HEARING
Betty Lichtwardt spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters, saying the League had four remaining areas of concern with the newest draft chapter:
Staff read a letter in the record from Carey Maynard Moody, a Barker Neighborhood resident who could not be present at tonight’s meeting. Ms. Moody’s letter said she appreciated the forward thinking evidenced in the revised chapter. However, she asked the Commission to consider looking at green lands as future “savings accounts” against global warming and to use greenbelts for more than separating uses.
Ms. Moody’s letter also asked if the proposed chapter had been checked for consistency with the work of Eco2.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff was asked to speak to the issue of mini-parks. Mr. DeVictor said these kinds of parks had been established in areas where the City was not able to obtain enough land to provide a neighborhood park. However, mini-parks were less economical to maintain and surveys indicated these kinds of parks were seen by the community as less important than neighborhood parks. It was noted that the chapter, as proposed, did not preclude mini-parks.
There was discussion about adding language proposed in Ms. Johnson’s letter about encouraging developers to provide mini-parks as part of development and under the maintenance of the Homeowner’s Association. It was suggested that this language provided more flexibility.
Staff responded to questioning that Eco2 had been consulted about the chapter revisions and had provided no additional input.
The Commission was not able to locate references to “natural areas” as referenced by the League of Women Voters and it was suggested this term had already been eliminated from a previous draft.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Ermeling to approve the Chapter 9 – Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces, as presented with the addition of language pertaining to mini-parks as indicated by Bonnie Johnson (in memo dated 09-09-05) and forward it to the City Commission and the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
The applicant asked the Commission to consider extending the meeting to another date and deferring Items 21A-21G for discussion when the group was not so tired. All parties agreed these items would likely require extended discussion and all items were deferred to Monday, October 10th at 7:00 p.m.
The Commission moved at this point to Item 22.
Items 21A-21G were taken up again on October 10, 2005.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the items, requests for an annexation, multiple rezonings and a preliminary plat for a mixed-use development covering approximately 122 acres. He noted the subject area’s location at the northeast corner of W. 6th Street and the K-10 Highway, describing property elevations and surrounding uses. He pointed out the ridge line running through the property, which creates drainage in two directions
Mr. Patterson explained some of the long-range planning history of the general area, including the Northwest Area Plan that identified all of the uses included in the proposed plat but in different locations and with different densities. The history also included the 2003 6th & K-10 Nodal Plan, which also identified similar uses at different densities.
Staff’s recommendations supported the determination that the development request was premature, based on concerns about the City’s ability to provide adequate services and capacities. Mr. Patterson said the applicant would need to revise the plat to adhere to the adopted nodal and area plan or provide information that development of the proposed density could be supported. Capacity and service concerns centered on three major elements:
1. Wastewater/sanitary sewer – The applicant is proposing a pump station in the northwest corner of the subject property that will direct more sanitary sewer drainage to the east. Recently, city-wide sanitary sewer capacity shortages have been identified. It is not yet known if the existing sewer system could handle the heavier demands associated with this development. It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide evidence (wastewater analysis) that this proposal could be supported.
2. Transportation – Transportation 2025 (T2025) identifies George Williams Way as a minor arterial. The City Engineer has required 120’ of right-of-way (60’ provided by this property) running along the eastern edge of the subject property. High-voltage utility lines run through the existing right-of-way and this section of the road is not yet constructed. T2025 also shows Overland Drive extended westward as a collector through the subject property and turning north to connect to Wakarusa Drive. The proposed plat shows Overland Drive connecting to the existing frontage road. The K-10 frontage road currently provides access to properties farther to the north. The frontage road’s access to W. 6th Street is to be removed when connection to internal streets is available.
Mr. Patterson said the applicant had provided a traffic study and a revised traffic study. However, Staff was still of the opinion that additional information is needed for the study to be complete. Staff concerns with the traffic study were identified in the Staff Reports.
3. Stormwater drainage – The plat shows five detention basins throughout the development. A revised drainage study will need to be provided that matches approved land uses. It was noted that municipal water is being installed in concurrence with the 6th Street road improvements.
Staff recommended denial of the plat based on a determination that the plat is too intense to conform to the adopted nodal plan and too much information is still lacking about stormwater, wastewater and traffic impacts. The applicant will need to provide the missing information to assure the City Commission that development of this intensity is supportable and appropriate in this location.
Mr. Patterson gave an overview of the proposed rezonings, showing how each piece fit into the overall plat to provide a mix of adjacent uses. He noted how each request compared to the designated land uses in the nodal plan, explaining the nodal plan provided an approximation of land uses without defining exact acreages or densities. It was noted that the applicant’s request was more intense than the adopted plans in all sections, including a proposal for high-density residential – a use that was not included in the nodal plan at all.
Staff’s recommendations for the rezoning requests were based on a determination that nearly all of the requests fell short of meeting all of the Golden Factors:
· 21B; A to PCD-2: The request exceeds the general amount of planed commercial zoning identified in the nodal plan.
· 21C; A to RO-1A: Use of the Lesser Change Table to approve a rezoning to O-1 would be more consistent with uses in the nodal plan.
· 21D; A to RS-2: This use is appropriate according to the nodal plan and a larger section of the overall development was indicated in the nodal plan for this use.
· 21E; A to RM-D: This use is acceptable according to the nodal plan.
· 21F; A to RM-2: Use of the Lesser Change Table to approve a rezoning to RM-1 would be more consistent with uses in the nodal plan.
Mr. Patterson noted a typographical error in the rezoning Staff Reports and asked the Commission to change two references to medium density as 16-21 dwelling units per acre to a density of 7-15 dwelling units.
Although some of the proposed uses would be appropriate per the nodal plan, Staff did not find the requests in conformance with the general amounts and densities described in the nodal plan. There was also concern about negative impacts on adjacent uses and the ability to provide the development with adequate services. For this reason, Staff recommended denial of all five rezoning requests and suggested the applicant revise the plat to fit the nodal and Comprehensive Plans or provide convincing evidence that the development should be allowed to exceed the density and size restrictions set forth in HORIZON 2020.
Mr. Patterson said the annexation request was for a relatively small piece of ground (approx. 17 acres) in Service Area 2 of the Urban Growth Area (UGA). However, Staff recommended denial of the request based on significant concerns regarding the City’s ability to provide services in a reasonable amount of time (within 5 years). Mr. Patterson said this property was within a growth corridor and was expected to develop, but phasing and timing issues were critical and more information was needed about wastewater and other municipal service capacities.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Jane Eldredge spoke on behalf of the Mercato Group, introducing members of ownership group and Landplan Engineering representatives.
Ms. Eldredge presented several documents the applicants believed supported annexation, including:
Kansas State Law:
· State law permits annexation if they will create a straight or harmonious City boundary line.
· State law permits annexation if a written petition is submitted from the property owner.
· State Law says the preparation of plan for extension of services shall not be required for or as a prerequisite for annexation of land if all owners submit a written petition.
· State law defines the Planning Commission’s role in annexations as one of review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan or any other adopted land use plan applicable to the annexation request area.
City annexation policies:
· The intent of City annexation policy is to make the City boundary straight to prevent confusion over service delivery and to avoid enclaves of unincorporated property.
· Annexation policy encourages property owners to submit for annexation of all portions of land they hold that should logically be included within the City boundaries.
· Annexation policy does not wish to create boundaries with irregular shapes.
· HORIZON 2020 states that the City will actively seek voluntary annexations with the UGA as development is proposed.
Comprehensive Plan:
· HORIZON 2020 requires annexation of all contiguous property adjacent to the City limits prior to development.
Northwest Area Plan
· The Northwest Area Plan states that this area should be planned in advance for urban development with no exclusions noted.
· The Northwest Area Plan adopted in 1997 included this 17-acre parcel in the conceptual land use map.
Wastewater Master Plan:
· The Wastewater Master Plan says the sanitary sewer system is currently designed to serve Sections 28 & 29 of the Northwest Area Plan.
· The WWMP identifies two sub basins for Baldwin Creek and updates of the plan have been done for these sub basins based on the increase in development and population projections.
· Black & Veatch population counts for Section 29 (containing the subject property) have nearly doubled and drainage basin improvements have been recommended in the WWMP.
6th & K-10 Nodal Plan
· The nodal plan refers to a need for two pump stations, and says sewer and water services are easily extended into the eastern half of the plan area.
Ms. Eldredge said that when the City applied to KDOT for funding to widen 6th Sreet, the application stated that road improvements were needed to support 2.3 million square feet of commercial uses in this area. Also as part of that application, Dave Corilss, Director of Legal Services, spoke in support of annexation of .5 miles on each side of 6th Street, saying this concept was a compilation of existing plans and policies. He said it would be appropriate to allow land owners to retain A (Agricultural) zoning for the time being because the annexation was unilateral. Ms. Eldredge said the 17-acre subject parcel was mistakenly left out of the 6th Street annexation proposal based on legal descriptions for land included in the Baldwin Creek sewer benefit district.
Ms. Eldredge said the applicants believed their proposal was in conformance with the Northwest Area Plan, the Wastewater Master Plan, the 6th & K-10 Nodal Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan and should therefore be approved. She said Staff’s recommendation was contrary to State Law and adopted policy documents and it was not within the Planning Commission’s authority to take action outside of these documents.
Ms. Eldredge said sewer concerns should not be allowed to cloud the issue. This property was “a long way away” from actual construction and it was not reasonable to delay the development approval process. She added that capacity needs could not be determined, thus proper planning could not take place, without annexation and rezoning. She encouraged the City to plan development and design sewer capacity to follow, not the other way around.
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, spoke in support of the multiple rezoning requests. He began by requesting that, if the annexation were denied, the rezonings be deferred rather than denied, to allow the applicants to return with revised rezoning and plat requests to reflect the ‘missing’ 17-acre section. It was discussed that the applicant was prepared to present the alternate plat design tonight but the new design must go through the proper Staff review and public hearing/notice process. It would be appropriate tonight only to consider the rezonings and plat reviewed by Staff and published in the agenda.
Mr. Herndon described the applicants’ efforts in preparing the area for annexation and development, including participation in a benefit district for the new lift station and installation of sanitary sewer lines. The property owners also paid to extend water lines across the SLT to serve this corridor. Mr. Herndon said these infrastructure improvements were done in good faith on an assumption that this land, as part of the UGA growth corridor, was anticipated for urbanized development. With these improvements complete and the end of the 6th Street improvements in sight, the applicants felt now was the right time for the next step in the planning process.
Mr. Herndon said the rezoning requests outlined a mix of uses including commercial, multi-family, single-family and duplex residential. He explained how this mix and its proposed densities compared positively to the guidance of the nodal plan and other adopted land use documents and also matched the mix approved for the southeast corner of the node.
Mr. Herndon referenced comments in the 6th Street annexation proposal about 2.3 million square feet of commercial space and 96 acres of commercial space in Section 29. He noted that this proposal was the only request for commercial space in Section 29 and contained 59 commercial acres.
Mr. Herndon also referenced comments made during development of the nodal plan about the “need for a development-driven proposal” to focus efforts on designing the area down to the local street level while at the nodal plan stage. He said this proposal provided that level of planning, down to local street design, easements and utility connections, in addition to supplying a full traffic study at “tremendous expense.” He said this proposal also brought a market study that was not available with the nodal or area plans.
Mr. Herndon said the issues identified in the Staff Report regarding additional information were not adequate reason to deny or defer action on the annexation and rezoning requests. Furthermore, he said the information Staff asked for could not be gathered until land uses were designated. A user would not be found for the property until the area was at least zoned and platted, so traffic generations and sewer requirements needed to test capacity were as yet unavailable.
Mr. Herndon outlined how, in the applicant’s opinion, the rezoning requests met each of the Golden Factors and should therefore be approved.
Mr. Herndon made comments about the road design shown in the plat:
· Staff recommended eliminating the frontage road in favor of another access design, but the authority to mandate that termination lies with KDOT, not the applicant.
· Transportation 2025 says a collector is needed in this area, but this document serves as a guide and the existing frontage road could be improved to serve as that collector instead of George Williams Way.
There was discussion between the Commission and the applicant about alternate road alignments and designs. Staff responded to questioning that extending the frontage road north as a collector would require additional right-of-way from that property owner.
Burress said he understood the project attempted to work within the guidelines set forth in the planning documents that were in place when the project began and noted the fairness issue inherent in the fact that the proposal had to be reviewed according to planning policies in place today. Mr. Herndon responded that it was unreasonable to adopt a policy requiring a study (traffic, drainage, etc.) and then ignore the results of that study.
Mr. Herndon said this kind of development was needed and asked what other intersection would be more appropriate. He said the applicant had provided a compelling explanation of why this was the right time and place for this proposal.
Staff responded to questioning that the applicant chose the consultant for the Market Study because the City did not have a consultant on board to complete the study at that time. The study was reviewed by an independent consultant hired by the City.
There was discussion about the applicant’s legal interpretation of the Planning Commission’s inability to deny the annexation on the basis of infrastructure needs because the request was initiated by the property owners. It was noted that these arguments were presented to Staff and Legal Counsel. Mr. Corliss had responded by pointing out that the law did not dictate the City Commission’s authority in these cases. It was suggested that the intent of State law was to protect landowners from overzealous annexation attempts by the City and the City was not required to ensure service provision if the annexation was voluntary on the part of the landowner.
It was noted that the plat included land that had been annexed unilaterally but allowed to keep it’s A (Agricultural) zoning for several years. In cases of owner initiation, it was common practice to request the property owner to bring a rezoning request in conjunction with annexation.
Burress commented that the applicant had presented many reasons in support of annexation, but asked if any of the documents referenced tonight, in the applicant’s opinion, required annexation in this case. Ms. Eldredge replied that “good planning principles” were the only thing requiring annexation.
There was discussion about the predicted failure of W. 6th Street. Staff explained the street was designed using data that was available at that time, which necessarily did not include specific land uses and acreages. The road was designed to accommodate a general capacity without knowing how specific traffic generations would impact intersections. The overloading of intersections were the traffic element predicted to fail, creating a domino effect along the corridor.
PUBLIC HEARING – rezonings only
Professor Kirk McClure spoke about the market analysis, saying the intent of this study is to determine if the community could absorb a given amount of commercial space in a reasonable amount of time without causing significant harm to the existing commercial market. Prof. McClure explained several reasons he believed the Development Strategies analysis of the market study was incorrect.
1. The use of population data as a proxy for market demand is not an uncommon practice but is inferior to a consideration of retail spending, specifically sales tax data that is available only to the City. HORIZON 2020 calls for this level of review but a mechanism to accomplish this has not been put in place.
2. Population growth has slowed significantly in recent years, but this market analysis is based on an assumption that population growth rates will exceed the peak growth rates of 1990’s. There is no evidence to support that assumption. He recast the study with lower growth rates, which indicated the city could not absorb the proposed amount of commercial development, even if no other additional commercial square footage were allowed anywhere else in the City.
It was questioned how the City could be overgrown with retail space, when residential growth had outreached utility capacities. Prof. McClure said the City was “still paying for past mistakes” in allowing too much retail growth to occur too quickly.
3. The study’s analysis of vacancy rates assumes the market is currently in balance, which is not the case. Many commercial spaces are being converted to office uses because the retail market is overbuilt. This kind of conversion is not desirable because it deprives the City of sales tax revenues and negatively impacts the office space market.
4. The City paid $8 million for a parking garage to support Downtown businesses and the redevelopment of the 900 block of New Hampshire. It is important to protect the Downtown commercial area by considering the impact of allowing new commercial spaces.
It was discussed that some of the commercial spaces converting to other uses had to do so because, as commercial uses, they were outmoded and did not fit modern-day retailing needs. Prof. McClure replied that some converted spaces were not that old, evidencing the Tanger property and other shopping center developments.
There was also discussion about retail “leakage”. Prof. McClure said some leakage was preventable but some was not. He said it was not reasonable to think that any retail use could be successfully integrated in Lawrence if a large enough space was provided.
Melinda Henderson made several comments about the Mercato proposal:
CLOSING COMMENTS
The applicant’s representatives stated:
· Developers make land use decisions based on long-term expectations derived from adopted planning documents and policies.
· It is important to consider what the law and adopted policies state, which is that annexation is supposed to occur when it accomplishes the things that this annexation will accomplish.
· No one has stated an opposition to the information contained in the market study. The testimony given was criticism of the City’s consultant’s review of the study.
· KDOT’s road design may be inadequate, but enough right-of-way has been obtained to improve the road up to 7 lanes.
· This applicant would like the same consideration that was given to the commercial development on the south side of 6th Street, which the Planning Commission approved in 2002 with nearly all of the same rezonings proposed here.
The applicant requested the Commission vote on the annexation first. If the annexation was denied, the applicant asked for deferral of the remaining items. If the annexation was approved, the applicant had prepared suggested conditions and findings of fact to consider for the rezonings and preliminary plat.
Haase said his decision would be heavily guided by the commercial chapter, which gave clear guidelines about how this node should be developed. He said the proposal appeared to rely on regulations that were in place before the adoption of the Commercial Chapter and asked, if the applicant thought the chapter shortchanged the intersection, why concerns were not raised when the chapter was being developed.
Haase said the nodal plan did not specify square footages but did place “strict parameters [on development] that this proposal clearly violates.” The applicant said this proposal also did not identify specific commercial square footages. The information today designated a square footage to be rezoned but the amount of that total square footage that would be constructed with a commercial building would not be identified until the development plan. Designating zoning now allowed the applicant to begin talking with prospective buyers to consider what building square footages to propose.
It was suggested that the Commission place significant density restrictions on the rezonings. Staff noted that, for the PCD-2 portion, the Commission could state maximum square footage coverage, regardless of the acreage. However, conditions restricting use and square footage could not be placed on the conventional rezoning requests. Similarly, the requests for conventional residential rezonings could not be conditioned with a density cap. Related to this issue, it was discussed that the practice of requiring a development plan to accompany a rezoning request had become less common.
Mr. Patterson stated Staff’s disagreement with the applicant’s statement that no action taken tonight would impact the existing situation on W. 6th Street. He said rezoning the property from agricultural to more intense uses implied an increase in traffic generation that would have to be handled by a street system that was already predicted for failure.
Mr. Patterson said this area would be developed at some point, but Staff had significant concerns about timing, phasing, service capacities and infrastructure that made this request, in Staff’s opinion, premature.
It was verified that the request was significantly larger than allowed for this node by the Comprehensive Plan, but the proposal was not exclusively commercial and included a mix of office and residential uses as well.
Ms. Finger responded to questioning that, at this time, the City held a position that annexation should not occur if services cannot be provided within five years.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed reasons in support of annexation:
· The subject 17 acres will be infill development in the future if the corner is not shored up today and it would be preferable to deal with the entire piece than try to retrofit this section later.
· The property owners are aware they cannot be provided with services today and have made a good case regarding provision of service requirements in voluntary annexation vs. unilateral.
· Significant issues have been raised about growth occurring almost exclusively in this part of the County, so that is where solutions will be focused. This makes it more reasonable to believe services may be provided within five years.
· It is clear that it was an oversight that this section was not annexed previously. It will ultimately have to be annexed so it can be included in the overall development picture.
· There is no gain in denying annexation today.
Reasons in support of denying the annexation request were also discussed:
· Staff is concerned that the subject property could not be supplied with adequate public services within five years.
· Administrative Policy 76 states: “annexation ensures coordination of services and infrastructure.”
· 6th Street traffic concerns are based on existing and approved development, not to mention complete lack of planning for bicycle and pedestrian movement along this corridor.
· Annexation Policy does not state “provision of services within five years”. The policy requires a plan showing how service can be provided within five years and there is no such plan in this case.
It was questioned how difficult it would be to integrate the subject 17 acres into the Northwest comprehensive service plan. It was noted that the area would also have to be incorporated into the Wastewater Master Plan, which would be complicated because of area topography.
Jennings spoke about the need to provide parcels large enough for future redevelopment to reduce commercial leakage. He said many existing retail spaces remained vacant because they were not equipped to accommodate modern commercial uses (loading docks, truck turn-around areas, space for multiple products) and suggested the acreage limitations of HORIZON 2020 were unrealistically small. He said the subject area would not develop quickly, but should be preserved as the best location for this type of development. He asked where else a commercial opportunity of this nature could be located.
Meeting extended to 10:45 p.m.
Haase said it was shortsighted not to provide space for larger retailers, but he was not sure how to reserve land for this purpose without giving development approval prematurely. He suggested the Commission return to the commercial chapter for a community discussion to rethink the total square footage allowance for the node.
Burress asked what grounds the property owners would have to sue the City for services in five years if annexation was approved today. Staff said the development plan would have to show phasing based on the ability to provide sewers and accommodate traffic, so development could not proceed out of sequence plans for when service provision would be established.
Burress said he would oppose annexation because he did not think annexation was required to ensure planning of this parcel with the rest of the area. He added that this parcel was on the boundary of the plat and thus was not “in the way” of other properties’ development.
Jennings responded that denial of the annexation would create an “infill pocket” that the Commission had found challenging in the past. He asked what was gained by denying annexation at this time, since the land would obviously need to be annexed at some point, based on its highly visible location on the frontage road and between developed lands.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 21A
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Eichhorn to approve annexation of 17.52 acres and forwarding to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based upon the following findings of fact:
Motion carried 5-4, with Eichhorn, Harris, Jennings, Krebs and Lawson voting in favor. Burress, Erickson, Ermeling and Haase voted in opposition.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The applicant was prepared to present suggested conditions and findings of fact if the Commission chose to approve any or all of the rezonings.
There was more discussion about how much commercial square footage could be developed, regardless of approved commercial acreage. It was noted that a development plan would be helpful in establishing what actual square footages were proposed. It was suggested that the scale was out of proportion, but questioned if the commercial chapter needed to be rethought and possibly revised before approving commercial zoning for areas so far over the chapter’s current restrictions.
It was suggested that denial of the rezonings would be appropriate, aside from the commercial square footage issue, based on traffic and infrastructure concerns.
Mr. Herndon repeated the applicants’ preference for deferral over denial, to allow time to provide information as requested by Staff. Commissioners questioned whether Staff’s rationale for recommending denial would become any less pertinent over the deferral period. It was noted that the Wade & Associate study was anticipated for completion in late 2005/early 2006, which would provide some of the missing information needed to appropriately review development proposals in this area.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Burress to defer Items 21B – 21G to the January 2006 meeting.
Motion carried 8-1, with Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Jennings and Lawson voting in favor. Krebs voted in opposition.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
It was verified that this deferral would not prevent Item 21A from going forward to the City Commission.
The Commission moved at this point to the end of the agenda.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the items, two rezonings intended to revert the subject properties to their PID-1 and M-1 zoning categories. PRD-2 zoning had been approved and published for the land in anticipation of a residential development that was no longer proposed.
Staff recommended approval of both requests as presented.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant, stating no objection to the Staff recommendation.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on these items.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional questions or comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 22A
Motioned by Harris, seconded by Ermeling to approve the rezoning of 4.95 acres from PRD-2 to PID-1 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
Item 22B
Motioned by Harris, seconded by Ermeling to approve the rezoning of 3.88 acres from PRD-2 to M-1 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
MISCELLANEOUS
· The Commission agreed to meet with developers for a work session on the Bauer Farms property following their Mid-Month meeting on October 12th.
· It was verified that topics for the Mid-Month meeting would be New Urbanism concepts and a continuation of detailed long-range visioning.
· The Commission was reminded of their annual retreat on November 5th from 8:00 -11:00 a.m.
11:20 p.m. – Recess to Monday, October 10th at 7:00 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
October 10, 2005 – Reconvene at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Jennings, Krebs and Lawson
Staff present: Finger, Patterson and Saker
_______________________________________________________________________
COMMUNICATIONS
· The Commission had received a series of emails initiated by Haase regarding an alternate view of the Market Analysis prepared by applicant and city consultant.
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS
· No ex parte communications were disclosed.
· No abstentions were indicated
The Commission moved at this point to Item 21
MISCELLANEOUS
Staff reminded the Commission that the Mid-Month meeting was scheduled for this Wednesday, October 12th.
ADJOURN – 10:30 p.m. October 10, 2005
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department Office.