PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MEETING

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Meeting minutes

October 2005

_____________________________________________________________

October 24, 2005 – 7:00 p.m.

Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan

Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Patterson, Pool, Ahrens, Day and Saker

_____________________________________________________________

MINUTES

Consideration of the September 2005 minutes was deferred to the Wednesday meeting.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

New Urbanism Committee: Met to put together an educational presentation that would be given to various community groups. RFP’s are being developed for areas where additional consulting needs have been identified.

County Zoning Regulations Committee: Work may begin in earnest now that the County Commission has made an official statement about what they want to see in the new regulations.

Comprehensive Plans Committee: Met twice to finalize the draft revisions of the Industrial Chapter of HORIZON 2020 and to continue work on the Southeast Area Plan. The committee had since been directed to shift work on the Northwest Area Plan to top priority.

Transportation 2030 Committee: This group is still working on procedural issues and had nothing of substance to report.

Mid-Month: The meeting was dedicated to a workshop to discuss the waiver and variance requests associated with the Bauer Farms proposal.

COMMUNICATIONS

Ms. Stogsdill outlined the following communications:

ITEMS 7A - 7D: Rezonings and Preliminary Development Plan for Bauer Farm

Letter from League of Women Voters expressing multiple concerns
Revised page 2 from Item 7D Staff report using correct name for the current Wastewater Master Plan

MISC. ITEM: CPA Horizon 2020; Chapter 8 Transportation;

Memo from Staff explaining the status of the amendments and summarizing the City Commission and County Commission rationale for returning the amendment to the Planning Commission
Copy of draft minutes from October 18^th City Commission meeting dealing with the transportation amendment.

EX PARTE / ABSTNTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUESTS

Erickson and Ermeling said they had discussed the Bauer Farms project with Staff and Cliff Ellis for clarification.
No abstentions were indicated.
There were no deferral requests for consideration
Item 5 was pulled from the Consent Agenda
The remainder of the Consent Agenda was approved unanimously.

Swearing in of witnesses

PC Minutes 10/24/05

ITEM NO 1: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR FAIRFIELD FARMS MULTI-FAMILY; SOUTHWEST CORNER OF K-10 HIGHWAY AND O’CONNELL ROAD (SLD)

FDP-08-13-05: Final Development Plan for Fairfield Farms Multi-Family. This proposed multiple-family residential development contains approximately 17.3457 acres and proposes construction of 55 townhouses and 205 apartments. The property is generally described as being located at the southwest corner of K-10 Highway and O’Connell Road. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, LLC, property owner of record.

Item 1 was deferred prior to the meeting.

PC Minutes 10/24/05

ITEM NO 2: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 6^TH & WAK MULTI-FAMILY; NORTHWEST CORNER OF W. 6^TH STREET & WAKARUSA DRIVE (PGP)

FDP-08-14-05: Final Development Plan for 6th & Wak Multi-Family. This proposed residential subdivision contains approximately 17.572 acres and proposes construction of 236 apartments. The property is generally described as being located at the northwest corner of W. 6^th Street and Congressional Drive. Submitted by Peridian Group for 6Wak Land Investments, LLC, property owners of record.

Item 2 was deferred prior to the meeting.

PC Minutes 10/24/05

ITEM NO 3: FINAL PLAT FOR FALL CREEK FARMS 12^TH PLAT; WEST OF KASOLD AND SOUTH OF PETERSON ROAD (LAP)

PF-08-27-05: Final Plat for Fall Creek Farms 12^th 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. Deferred by the applicant from September 26, 2005 meeting.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Erickson, seconded by Haase to approve the Final Plat for Fall Creek Farms 12^th Plat, subject to the following conditions:

Lots 1 through 8, Block One, of the final plat for Fall Creek Farms approved 03/14/95 shall not be allowed building permits until such time as sanitary sewer capacity issues are resolved for KR-2 to the satisfaction of the city. The city anticipates that, subject to the completion of the aforementioned sewer capacity study for KR-2 in the spring, 2006, more definitive information will be available concerning the city’s ability to allow building permits for these lots;
Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

A current copy of a paid property tax receipt;
Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
A completed Master Street Tree Plan in accordance with Section 21-7081.3.

Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations;
Submittal of public improvement plans for the construction of Fall Creek Drive (extended) and Wilderness Way, sidewalks associated with both streets, and extension of sanitary sewer, stormwater, and water mains;
Inclusion of a note on the final plat, stating: “Adjacent property owners will be required to maintain all drainage easements. Structures, fences and/or cut/fill operations are prohibited within drainage easements;” and
Inclusion of a note on the final plat, stating: “The temporary turn-around on Lots 8 and 9, Block One, will be removed with the permission of the city engineer when Fall Creek Drive is extended to the north of the platted property.”

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.

PC Minutes 10/24/05

ITEM NO 4: REPLAT OF LOTS 29 & 30A, BLOCK ONE, WESTWOOD HILLS 3^RD PLAT; 5204 &5208 BROWN LANE (MKM)

PF-09-34-05: Replat of Lots 29 & 30A, Block One, Westwood Hills 3^rd Plat. This proposed two lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 0.42 acre. The property is located on the north side of Brown Lane west of Eaton Drive. Submitted by Ron Faught, Medallion Homes, Inc. for Gene & Nancy Dorsey and Glen Westervelt, Westwood LLC, property owners of record.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Erickson, seconded by Haase to approve the Replat of Lots 29 & 30A, Block One, Westwood Hills 3^rd Plat and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:

1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a. A current copy of a paid property tax receipt.

b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.

c. A completed Master Street Tree Plan in accordance with Section 21-708a.3.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.

PC Minutes 10/24/05

ITEM NO 5: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE COVE; NORTH OF HARVARD ROAD AND WEST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (SLD)

PP-09-19-05: Preliminary Plat for The Cove. This proposed 30-lot multiple-family residential subdivision contains approximately 12.51 acres. The property is generally described as being located north of Harvard Road and west of George Williams Way. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Lakau, Inc., property owner of record.

Item 5 was pulled from the Consent Agenda.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Stogsdill introduced the item, showing the boundaries of the subject area, which had previously been rezoned to RM-1 and was now proposed for a 30-lot multi-family residential development.

Ms. Stogsdill referenced three recommended conditions from Staff and said the Commission had discussed adding a condition for an additional landscape easement along George Williams Way. She noted the two utility easements totaling 30’ along the eastern edge of the property and pointed out that the lots were deeper than typical single- or multi-family lots.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Brian Kubota, applicant asked the Commission to consider removing condition 3, which would require him to submit a downstream analysis for approval by the City Engineer before submitting a final plat. He explained the participation of this property in a past benefit district for sewer improvements, with payments that would total about $86,000 by the end of the district. Mr. Kubota said it was unfair to say the sewers this property had helped to pay for could not support the property’s development.

Mr. Kubota said the subject property had also taken part in benefit districts for extending sewer and water service across George Williams Way. He said this was another hardship on his property created thorough projects initiated by the City.

Mr. Kubota said he was told in 1994 this proposal was premature. In 2001 the project was delayed for creation of a nodal plan. The property had been paying into benefit districts for 2 years, as well as paying for drainage, traffic and market studies. He said two commercial contracts had been lost as a direct result of these delays. The single-family portion of the development had been constructed and the applicant asked for approval to move ahead with the townhouse portion along George Williams Way.

Regarding additional landscape easements, Mr. Kubota said he intended to landscape this property with the same care and consideration he gave to his other developments. In this case he proposed an undulating landscaped berm as a noise buffer for the residents.

Burress said he agreed the situation might not be fair, but the Commission had a responsibility to prevent the development of any project that would override the sewer capacity. Mr. Kubota said his property should have “first priority” on remaining sewer capacity. He said he had to go before the City Commission to discuss these service issues, and the only way to get before the governing body (other than as a Miscellaneous item) was with the Final Plat. He asked for removal of condition 3 so the final plat could be submitted for the November deadline and eventually go before the City Commission. He said other developments were using the sewer line his property had paid for. He did not mind this as long as he was permitted to develop and use the line for the subject property.

Mr. Kubota responded to questioning that he would object to a condition requiring an additional landscape easement, even one that reflected his stated landscaping intent. He said he preferred to provide the additional landscaping to best serve his clients and additional conditions were unnecessarily cumbersome. Burress expressed concern that, without conditions about landscaping, if the property changed hands the next owner might not follow through with Mr. Kubota’s landscaping designs.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Staff responded to questions about condition 3, explaining the Subdivision Regulations specifically tied the downstream analysis requirement to the preliminary plat. Ms. Stogsdill said the Utilities Department would very likely recommend denial of the project if it had to be evaluated on the basis of the sewer information available at this time. Condition 3 was written in anticipation of modeling to be completed by Wade & Associates, which might provide missing data to show a higher sewer capacity.

It was discussed that the Commission could apply the downstream analysis requirement to the final plat, but the proposal would still be prevented from going to the City Commission until the study was approved. Staff said putting the downstream analysis requirement on the final plat would be a disadvantage to the City (acting against the Code) and a risk to the applicant (going through the cost of a final plat with redesign necessary later).

Phil Struble asked to clarify that a downstream analysis had been completed and submitted to the City “in total conformance with Administrative Policy regarding how these [studies] are to be done.” Mr. Struble said the delay in this case was on the City’s part. He said there was “no justification” for delaying comment on the submitted study in favor of a study that would be city-wide in nature. He also suggested the wording of the condition as written gave the incorrect impression that the study had not been submitted.

Mr. Struble commented that he read City policy and ordinance to state the downstream analysis was to be applied to “the plat”, and did not specifically say the “preliminary plat.”

Mr. Struble said the applicant was willing to take the risk identified by Staff. He said, “If we get to the final plat and find we are out of [sewer] capacity we will cross that bridge when we get to it”.

Staff noted that this applicant was not being asked to wait for the entire Wade & Associates study. A model was ready to be run on four pending plats, including this one, and the results were expected within the week. The Commission discussed modifying condition 3 to extend the submittal deadline for the final plat, with Staff warning not to extend the deadline too far into the early review period for November projects.

Mr. Struble said the applicant’s downstream analysis showed no capacity problems down to 10% as required by Code, and the analysis being done by the Utilities Department was beyond the requirements of City policy.

The Commission discussed modifying condition 3 to tie the downstream analysis approval to the building permit(s). The applicant expressed no objection to this change, but Staff expressed concern that plat approval would give the false impression that the building permit would be a “done deal.” If the analysis showed there was indeed a capacity shortage, the applicant would have gone to tremendous cost to get approval for a plat that might expire before it could obtain a building permit. The applicant said this cost was insignificant compared to other expenses. It was discussed that the plat approval could be extended by bringing the item back to the Planning Commission, but extension was not automatic and faced possible denial.

Ms. Finger stated again for the record that conditioning the downstream analysis submission and approval to a building permit was contrary to Code and administrative policy.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the Preliminary Plat with revisions to condition 3 to state:

3. Approval of a downstream analysis submitted by the applicant for wastewater services by the City Engineer prior to submission of the Final Plat for Planning Commission consideration. Approval must be received by November 4, 2005 for the Final Plat to be submitted for consideration at the December 2005 Planning Commission meeting.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

It was verified that the condition was intended to convey that the final plat could not be submitted for the December 2005 meeting if the downstream study was not approved by November 4^th. Haase said he agreed with the applicant that the study had been submitted in compliance with administrative policy and asked if the reworded condition was meant to condition the final plat on the results of the downstream study. Krebs said she meant the condition to preclude approval of any additional sewer hookups without adequate capacity.

There was discussion about revising the condition further to reflect the desired combination of information from the applicant’s study and the forthcoming Wade & Associates study. Staff reminded the Commission that this project did not have to be delayed for the full consultant study, just on the modeling being run for this development.

Staff said the applicant had fulfilled the AP76 requirement to submit a downstream analysis down to 10%. However, there was an additional responsibility the City was now responsible for continuing the evaluation for the rest of the system.

The Commission discussed landscaping conditions. There was general agreement that Mr. Kubota had done quality work in the past. However, Burress said confidence in the applicant should not be a basis for decisions. He asked Staff to draft language for an additional condition for a landscape easement to accommodate landscape screening as described by Mr. Kubota.

Eichhorn expressed concern that placing extensive additional conditions on development would lead to “applicants giving us the minimum instead of their best because we stifle design creativity.” It was suggested that the Commission consider changing the code if they had serious concerns about residential lots backing onto arterials/collectors.

ACTION TAKEN

The motion and second agreed to modify the proposed condition 3 to state:

3. Approval of a downstream analysis for wastewater services by the City Engineer in conjunction with the City’s more complete analysis of the receiving system prior to submission of the Final Plat. Approval must be received by November 4, 2005 for the Final Plat to be submitted for consideration at the December 2005 Planning Commission meeting.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Mr. Struble responded to questioning that the entire third condition was irrelevant because the development would be delayed in any case if adequate sewer capacity was not found.

Staff proposed the following for a condition on additional landscaping. Burress said this kind of condition had been used before, but it might be a good idea to amend the regulations to make this use of landscaping required.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Burress, seconded by Erickson to amend the motion on the floor to add a condition to state:

4. Addition of a General Note on the face of the Final Plat to state: “An undulating landscape berm shall be provided along George Williams Way between the public right-of-way and the rear of residential lots abutting this road right-of-way.”

Motion to amend carried 6-3, with Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs, and Riordan voting in favor. Eichhorn, Jennings and Lawson voted in opposition.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Haase said he appreciated what the current motion attempted to do, but he would oppose the motion because he felt it “upset the City-wide process we are trying to accomplish.” He said the applicant’s statement that condition 3 was irrelevant seemed reasonable to him, since building permits would not be issued for lots that could not be serviced “no matter what.”

Riordan said he would also oppose the motion because the City’s part in the necessary sewer studies was not yet complete. He suggested giving Staff guidelines for reviewing similar situations until the City’s sewer capacity issued were resolved. He stated his preference for placing the condition on the final plat or building permit.

Ms. Finger responded to questioning that Legal Staff would have to address the issue of legal implications of denying building permits for approved platted lots.

ACTIONS TAKEN

Motioned by Burress, seconded by Haase to defer Item 5 to the Wednesday meeting in anticipation of additional sewer information from the City.

Motion failed to carry, 2-6-1, with Burress and Haase in favor. Eichhorn, Erickson, Krebs, Jennings, Lawson and Riordan voted in opposition. Ermeling was absent during the vote.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to approve the Preliminary Plat for The Cove, subject to the following revised and amended conditions:

1. Provision of a note that prohibits access to lots 14 and 15, Block 2 from Ken Ridge Drive;

2. Revision of general note 15 to include Lot 14, Block 2 and Lot 14, Block 1 in the access restriction to George Williams Way;

Motion failed to carry, 4-4-1, with Eichhorn, Erickson, Krebs and Lawson voting favor. Burress, Haase, Jennings and Riordan voted in opposition and Ermeling was absent during the vote.

Motioned by Haase, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the Preliminary Plat for The Cove with the following re-revised conditions:

1. Provision of a note that prohibits access to lots 14 and 15, Block 2 from Ken Ridge Drive;

2. Revision of general note 15 to include Lot 14, Block 2 and Lot 14, Block 1 in the access restriction to George Williams Way;

3. Addition of General Note on the face of the Preliminary Plat to state: “Approval of a downstream analysis for wastewater services by the City Engineer in conjunction with the City’s more complete analysis of the receiving system prior to issuance of a building permit for the subject property”; and

4. Addition of a General Note on the face of the Preliminary Plat to state: “An undulating landscape berm shall be provided along George Williams Way between the public right-of-way and the rear of residential lots abutting this road right-of-way.”

Motion carried 7-1-1, with Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Jennings, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Krebs voted in opposition and Ermeling was absent during the vote.

PC Minutes 10/24/05

ITEM NO 6: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TOMLINSON ADDITION; 1800 NORTH COUNTY ROAD 250 (LAP)

PP-09-20-05: Preliminary Plat for Tomlinson Addition. This proposed one-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 48.0 acres. The property is described as being located at 1800 N 250 Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Ralph and Barbara Tomlinson, property owners of record.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Erickson, seconded by Haase to approve the Preliminary Plat for Tomlinson Addition, subject to the following condition:

1. Revision of the plat to include a note, stating that development will be limited to one single-family residence until the property is annexed into Baldwin City.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.

PC Minutes 10/24/05

ITEM NO 7A: PRD-2 TO POD-1; 2.59 ACRES; NORTHEAST CORNER OF W. 6^TH STREET & WAKARUSA DRIVE (PGP)

Z-03-16-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 2.59 acres from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District to POD-1 (Planned Office Development) District. The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6^th Street between Wakarusa Drive and Folks Road (Bauer Farm). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Free State Holdings, Inc., property owner of record. Deferred from the September Planning Commission meeting.

PC Minutes 10/24/05

ITEM NO 7B: PRD-2 TO PCD-2; 8.23 ACRES; NORTHEAST CORNER OF W. 6^TH STREET & WAKARUSA DRIVE (PGP)

Z-03-17-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 8.23 acres from PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District. The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6^th Street between Wakarusa Drive and Folks Road (Bauer Farm). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Free State Holdings, Inc., property owner of record. Deferred from the September Planning Commission meeting.

PC Minutes 10/24/05

ITEM NO 7C: PCD-2 TO PCD-2; 18.938 ACRES; NORTHEAST CORNER OF W. 6^TH STREET & WAKARUSA DRIVE (PGP)

Z-07-48-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 18.938 acres from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District to revise use restrictions. The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6^th Street between Wakarusa Drive and Folks Road (Bauer Farm). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Free State Holdings, Inc., property owner of record. Deferred from the September Planning Commission meeting.

PC Minutes 10/24/05

ITEM NO 7D: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BAUER FARM; NORTHEAST CORNER OF W. 6^TH STREET & WAKARUSA DRIVE (PGP)

PDP-03-02-05: Preliminary Development Plan for Bauer Farm. This proposed planned commercial, office, and residential development contains approximately 43.88 acres. The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6^th Street (U.S. Highway 40) between Wakarusa Drive and Folks Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Free State Holdings, Inc., property owner of record. (This item relates to Z-03-16-05, Z-03-17-05, and Z-07-48-05.) Consideration will include requests for approval of waivers from various requirements in Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Deferred from the September Planning Commission meeting.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Patterson outlined past rezoning approvals leading up to the current situation and explained the current requests were tabled previously for four months under the assumption that certain things would take place, including:

· Creation of a new development plan

· Work between the applicant and Staff regarding the needed waivers

· Completion of a public presentation on New Urbanism

· Scheduling of a Commission work session to discuss the needed waivers

Staff recommended approval of Items 7A and 7B with conditions, including the continuation of the use and building size restrictions applied to previous rezonings.

Staff recommended denial of Item 7C, which requested to expand the allowed uses in the current PCD-2 zoning. Staff offered an alternate recommendation for a limited expansion of allowed uses to include some of the less traffic-intensive uses proposed by the applicant. There was specific concern about the number of drive-thru uses proposed.

Staff identified a number of waivers needed to accommodate the development plan (Item 7D) as proposed:

Waiver from the Subdivision Regulations to allow creation of building lots with less than 4000 square feet. Staff could support this waiver, including the row house portion of the plan where dwelling units might be sold individually.
Waiver from the Subdivision Regulations to reduce internal peripheral boundaries between uses. Staff could support this waiver because the internal boundaries served no purpose.
Waiver from the Subdivision Regulations to reduce outer peripheral boundaries. Staff opposed this waiver because other developments had been required to provide this buffer between themselves and adjacent uses. If this waiver were approve Staff cautioned the Commission to pay close attention to streetscape amenities and the location of common open space.
Waiver from the Subdivision Regulations to reduce residential setbacks. Staff supported this waiver with the understanding that additional building codes would come into play.
Waiver from the Subdivision Regulations to reduce commercial setbacks. Staff supported this waiver, provided appropriate peripheral boundaries were matched.

One variance was also identified, which was not within the Planning Commission’s purview. The variance to reduce/eliminate the 50’ building and parking lot setback along W. 6^th Street would have to be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals or a Text Amendment must be initiated and adopted to remove this requirement for all developments.

Mr. Patterson said Staff had no objection to the requested exception for off-set streets, but more information was needed about the impact of residential alleys on emergency and utility access.

Mr. Patterson said Staff recommended denial of the preliminary development plan for several reasons:

The proposed development plan contains more commercial retail uses than allowed by the approved nodal plan.
A number of issues remain about streets, traffic and access.
The wastewater capacity matter needs further study.
Additional information is needed about the provision of open space and other elements.
A significant number of waivers would be needed to permit the plan as proposed.
Tandem parking is shown on the development plan. This type of parking has been allowed in developments in the past, but each tandem space counts only as one space toward the parking requirement.
Changes recommended by Staff would require an entirely new development plan design, making the current design moot.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Dan Watkins spoke on behalf of the applicant, giving an overview of the applicant’s position on main points:

Open space is designed to make the development “pleasantly walkable.”
The Code does not support Staff’s recommendation for denial based on the need for multiple waivers.
The Code does not provide for the introduction of this new design concept (New Urbanism).

Mr. Watkins spoke about the setback issues along W. 6^th Street, describing how the 200’ corridor originally intended from Monterey Way to the SLT had been incrementally whittled away and was no longer an appropriate requirement. He stated the applicant’s intent to make this case before the City Commission and request initiation of a Text Amendment to remove the 50’ setback requirement along the entire corridor.

Mr. Watkins explained the W. 6^th Street access, saying KDOT made it clear the right-in/right-out access point originally proposed would not be permitted. The applicant said Chris Huffman at KDOT said he was not opposed to the applicant pursuing the legal options for obtaining a right-in only access at this point.

Mr. Watkins discussed the applicant’s participation in benefit districts for improvements at several intersections. These included an intersection at Champion Road, with the understanding that Staff had recommended a cul-de-sac at that location to preclude traffic issues related to the nearby High School. Mr. Watkins said their traffic study indicated a minimum of traffic from the high school would travel this direction because of parking lot locations and the applicant asked for additional guidance on this issue.

The applicant presented a chart comparing the applicant’s proposed list of expanded allowable uses vs. Staff’s more limited list. He said the commercial area proposed conformed to the 62,000 square feet approved by the City Commission.

Mr. Watkins said the applicant understood the proposed drive-thru businesses were of concern to Staff and said the drive-thrus could be achieved without changing lot configuration or open space. Burress questioned how many drive-thru uses were actually needed and how many were requested as “place-holders”. Mike Treanor said an effort was being made to create a pedestrian-friendly development, but this location along the arterial road meant auto-related uses would be involved. He identified one drive-thru location that was requested but possibly could be done without.

Mr. Watkins presented various ideas for eventual build-out of the subject area. He said some of these concepts may not be appropriate today, but approval now would reserve the land for other uses when this kind of development was needed.

Ermeling expressed concern that the New Urbanism concept was lost in the transition between residential and commercial sections of the development. She said the proposal had elements of New Urbanism but was not a true example of this development concept. She asked if there were elements that could be redesigned to form a more textbook example of New Urbanism. The applicant said many true New Urbanism elements could not be applied in this development because of retail limitations and the property’s location along an arterial. New Urbanism designs were also limited by the City Code, which was not written to accommodate this new planning style.

It was suggested that Champion Lane could be designed as a boulevard if it were connected and discussed whether this point would be signalized whether or not Champion Lane went through.

Mr. Treanor responded to several questions:

The applicant’s traffic study took into consideration the possible need for improvements to Overland Drive and indicated these improvements could be done without interrupting the lots proposed for drive-thru uses.
The development provides adequate parking even with the tandem spaces counted as one space instead of two.
The applicant’s traffic study indicated that Overland Drive is wide enough to stripe for three lanes but this is not needed.

Mr. Treanor explained in response to questioning the reasoning behind several design choices:

Why the houses were oriented as shown instead of backing onto the center greenspace;
How drive-thru locations related to pedestrian pathways in terms of congestion and safety; and
How the layout would be modified if the proposed right-in access were not allowed.

There was discussion about how long it would take to get a Text Amendment adopted that would allow the development to proceed as shown (without providing the 50’ setback along W. 6^th Street). It was suggested that, if done correctly, this could take several months.

Jennings commented that a wider variety of uses would be viable if Champion Lane was allowed to go through. It was suggested this would be preferable as long as adequate traffic calming measures were taken.

PUBLIC HEARING

No member of the public spoke on these items

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Burress expressed concern over the number of questions that could not be defined or answered tonight. He said he would prefer to pursue the text amendment, meanwhile giving the applicant direction for revisions to bring back to the Commission. Eichhorn said he agreed about initiating the text amendment, but he felt the Commission had adequate information to take action on the items before them tonight.

The Commission discussed the Champion Lane connection, identifying the two sides of the issue:

High School students using Champion Lane to cut through the development is a significant safety concern, especially when efforts are being made to make the City more pedestrian-friendly.
The City Engineer and Traffic Engineer recommended connecting Champion Lane to provide some relief for traffic issues at 6^th & Wakarusa and Overland Drive & Folks Road. Their review of this connection was made in consideration of the current development plan.

Each Commissioner stated their opinion about the Champion Lane question, with an even number on each side of the issue.

An effort was made to decide which item (rezonings, waivers, or the development plan) to concentrate on first. Several comments were made:

Burress said he did not like to consider the rezonings without the plan and suggested a reverse order was more appropriate (development plan first).
Haase said dealing with the waivers first might identify a “deal breaker” that would require re-design of the development plan and rezonings.
The Community Theatre cannot begin fundraising until its new location is finalized. It may be advisable for them to look at other possibilities if timing is critical.
The location proposed for a convention center is odd, being some distance from Downtown and both Universities.

Meeting extended 30 minutes

It was established that the Commission could limit the number of drive-thrus in the PCD-2, and that carry out spaces (as seen at Applebee’s or Chili’s) were not considered drive-thru’s but were not included in the provided parking calculation.

The Commission discussed approving the list of expanded uses from Staff and go through the list of uses proposed by the applicant one-by-one.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Burress, seconded by Ermeling to approve the list of expanded uses presented by Staff, including:

Use Group 4 - Multiple-family Residential

Multiple-family residential use above commercial use (retail/office on 1^st floor with multiple-family residential on upper floor(s))

Use Group 12 - Retail Sales

Antique sales
Appliances, furniture, home furnishings, sales, rental repair
Art supply sales
Bank, savings & loan and trust company (without a drive-thru)
Clothing sales
Food store, including retail bakery
Laundry, self service only
Mail order service
Optical goods, sales
Orthopedic or medical appliance sales
Photographic studio
Quick copy or duplicating center
Radio and television studio
Sewing machine sales and repair
Shoe repair and sales

Use Group 13 - Automotive Services, Retail Sales other

Automobile parking garage
Barber and beauty equipment sales
Blueprinting and similar reproduction processes
Bus passenger station
Caterer
Free standing automated banking or dispensing facility (walkup without a drive-thru)
Leather goods, sales and repair
Pet shop
Quick copy or duplicating center
Recording studio
Secretarial service
Baked goods, candy , delicatessen, and ice cream; all for retail sales on the premises only

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

COMMISSION DISCUSSUION

Several points were clarified regarding the proposed expanded uses presented by the applicant:

“Media store” refers to a sexually-oriented business and both the applicant and the Commission agreed this use could be struck without opposition.
A swimming pool may be permitted as an accessory use even if the use is struck from the list.
If “Variety Store” is retained as an allowable use, a clear definition should be applied.
“Licensed premises” refers to any business holding a liquor license.
“Service Station” refers only to gas pumps and does not include a convenience store or repair shop.
The applicant does not intend for this development to include a Convenience Store use.
The applicant does not oppose striking the Motel or Hotel uses, but this kind of use might generate needed customers for other businesses in the development.
A Hotel use might be permissible if it were split away from the convention center use.
Restaurant with drive-thrus are considered to be included under “Eating establishment with dancing and entertainment”.
The majority of the Commission supported retaining the Hotel and Motel uses.
The majority of the Commission supported retaining the Auto Sales use.

Meeting extended 30 minutes

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Lawson to approve the following uses proposed by the applicant (uses proposed but struck are indicated by ~~strikethrough~~):

Use Group 12 – Retail Sales

Altering, pressing, repairing of apparel
~~Automotive Service Station~~
Banks, Savings and Loan (with drive-thru)
Bowling Alley
Club or Lodge
Hardware Store and small tool rental but not lumber or industrial hardware
~~Hatblocking and repair~~
Ice Vending Machine
Laundry Pick-up Station
Licensed Premises
Liquor, Wine, Beer Sales - consumption off premises
Loan Office
Nursery Sales/Stock
Paint and Wallpaper Sales
Photographic Processing
Post Office
Theatre, Indoor Commercial
Variety Store
Video Store, Sale or Rental or retail

Use Group 13 – Automotive Services, Retail Sales other

Amusement Park – commercial
Automobile Parts Store, Tire Accessories
Automobile Repair and Services
Automobile Sales, Service, Rental (new and used)
~~Automobile Service Station~~
Business Machine rental, repair, sales
Car or Truck Wash
Eating establishment enclosed with dancing and entertainment
~~Eating establishment, drive-up services only, no seating~~
~~Golf driving range~~
Golf, Pitch and Putt
Home Improvement Center
Hotel
Laboratory, medical or dental
~~Media Store (Ord. 7226)~~
~~Mobile Home Sales~~
Monument Sales
Motel
Motorcycle Sales
Office Equipment sales
Plumbing Fixture sales
School, commercial or trade
Skating Rink
Studio for professional work
Swimming Pool
Clothing custom manufacturing

Motion carried 7-2, with Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Krebs, Jennings, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Haase and Ermeling voted in opposition.

Item 7A

Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the rezoning of 2.59 acres from PRD-2 to POD-1 and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:

Approval of a Preliminary Development Plan; including approval of a downstream wastewater analysis per Section 21-706(d);
Filing of a Final Plat for the property at the Register of Deeds Office; and
No building permit will be issued until the W. 6^th Street Project is substantially completed.

Motion carried 5-4, with Eichhorn, Krebs, Jennings, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Burress, Erickson, Ermeling and Haase voted in opposition.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Burress explained he had opposed the previous vote because, without the development plan, he did not know what additional conditions he might like to place on the rezonings and he wanted to keep that option open. Eichhorn said he agreed with Burress regarding the PCD rezoning request. It was discussed that denial of a rezoning would prevent the applicant from resubmitting before 12 months. However, anything the applicant did to revise the development per Staff’s recommendations would constitute a substantial change and would not be subject to the 12-month rule (this would have to involve a different zoning classification or a substantially different square footage).

The Commission discussed the appropriateness of applying the commercial design guidelines that had not yet been adopted by the City Commission. Staff said the Legal Department opinion was that the Commission could ask the applicant to consider using the guidelines, but could not yet legally require their use.

Meeting extended 10 minutes

Lawson left at 11:00 p.m.

Krebs asked if there was a general consensus for supporting the waivers and exceptions, with the understanding that the W. 6^th Street setback issues were beyond the authority of the Planning Commission.

Haase said the Commission would be remiss to ignore how much traffic mattered in this proposal. Eichhorn said the City Commission had made it clear they did not intend to address relevant traffic matters at this time.

It was suggested that the Chair appoint three Commissioners to a new committee to investigate a potential Text Amendment with Staff that would address gateway planning on a City-wide basis. Meanwhile, the applicant indicated their intent to suggest the City Commission initiate the Text Amendment.

It was suggested that the peripheral boundary waivers reflected directly on the W. 6^th Street issue and should also be discussed by the new committee.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Burress, seconded by Krebs to defer Items 7B-7D to the December 2005 agenda.

Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.

PC Minutes 10/24/05

MISC. ITEM NO. 1: RECEIVE DRAFT CHAPTER 7 – HORIZON 2020

Receive Draft Horizon 2020, Chapter 7, Industrial Land Use and initiate public hearing for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for November or December 2005.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Burress, seconded by Erickson to receive the document and initiate a public hearing for November or December 2005.

Motion carried 7-0-1, with Ermeling abstaining.

MISC. ITEM NO. 2: OTHER BUSINESS

11:15 p.m. - Recess until 6:30 P.M. on October 26, 2005

_____________________________________________________________

October 26, 2005 – Reconvene at 6:30 p.m.

Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson, Riordan and Student Commissioner Wright

Staff present: Stogsdill, Ahrens, Pool, Day and Saker

_____________________________________________________________

MINUTES

One typographical error was noted on page 10.

Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Erickson to approve the September 2005 minutes as revised.

Motion carried unanimously 8-0.

COMMUNICATIONS

General

Email from Ermeling outlining her concerns with the development proposal for Bauer Farms (Items 7A-7D) being touted as an example of New Urbanism

EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUESTS

Eichhorn asked to explain his comments at the Monday meeting regarding Peterson Road. He said his frustration continued to grow with the City’s inaction in identifying a much-needed east-west connection in this area.
No abstentions were indicated.
No ex parte communications were disclosed.
There were no deferral requests to consider.

Swearing in of speakers

PC minutes 10/26/05

ITEM NO 8: M-2 TO RS-2; 200 BLOCK OF PERRY STREET (SLD)

Z-05-34-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 1.35 acres from M-2 to RS-2; located on the south side of the 200 block of Perry Street. Requested by the North Lawrence Neighborhood Association and initiated by the Planning Commission at their July 25, 2005, meeting.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Day introduced the item, a request initiated by the City at the request of multiple area residents to rezone the subject area to reflect existing residential uses. She explained the neighborhood request also identified lots in the 300 block and showed the boundary of the request.

Staff received positive responses from most property owners contacted through Neighborhood Association meetings and letters, although some property owners did not respond. The one opposition was cleared when it was verified that the existing double lot could still be split to redevelop as two individual lots.

It was noted that the existing (residential) uses did not match the current zoning, making the existing homes non-conforming uses. Residential uses are generally not permitted in industrial zones.

Ms. Day explained the 300 block was not included in tonight’s request because it would create one property as an isolated industrial use, although this was not an unusual juxtaposition in North Lawrence.

It was verified that the north side of the 200 Block of Perry Street was not included in the request because it was already zoned RS-2.

Student Commissioner Wright arrived at 6:45 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING

Ted Boyle, President of the North Lawrence Improvement Association, said the neighborhood supported the request to apply zoning to reflect and protect existing residential uses and neighborhood character.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

The commission had no additional comments or questions about this item.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Haase, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the rezoning of the south side of the 200 Block of Perry Street (Lots 169-176, North Lawrence Addition No. 2) from M-2 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, 8-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.

PC minutes 10/26/05

ITEM NO 9: A & VC TO A-1; 3 ACRES; HWY 1057 AND WAKARUSA RIVER (LAP)

Z-09-52-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 3 acres from A (Agricultural) and VC (Valley Channel) Districts to A-1 (Suburban Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located between the Wakarusa River and E 1900 Road, northwest of N 1275 Road. Submitted by John and Rebecca Thomas, contract purchasers, and Blue Jacket Partnership, property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Pool introduced the item, a request to rezone the subject property to allow construction of a single-family home. She described the subject area as a part of a larger parcel within in the UGA, with several 4-acre lots in the vicinity. Ms. Pool said a water meter and paved road are available to serve the subject property.

Staff explained that the southwest portion of the subject property was located within the 100-year floodplain and this portion of the plat would be noted as a “no build” zone.

Krebs arrived at 6:50 p.m.

Regarding Study Session questions about access, Staff said the proposal involved a direct access point from an arterial, but the City transportation planner and the County Engineer expressed no concern about this specific case.

Staff recommended approval, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

John Thomas, contract purchaser, said he wished to pursue rezoning before platting for financial reasons. He said the subject area was the only suitable place in the larger parcel for a home, noting the location of the subject property between the E 1900 Road and the Wakarusa River.

Mr. Thomas described his intent to create a natural wildlife area to the north of the subject property.

Burress expressed concern about setting a precedent of allowing curb cuts along arterials. It was discussed that denying the arterial access as proposed would create a landlocked smaller parcel, but this parcel was still part of a larger parcel, which had an agricultural access point.

It was suggested that a note could be required on the plat stating a single access point would be permissible due to this property’s location between the river and the road. This would protect against creating an unwanted precedent.

PUBLIC HEARING

No member of the public spoke on this Item.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Staff responded to questioning that the Commission had the ability to recommend access restrictions, but the County access management standards were not yet adopted and could not legally be applied to development.

Ms. Finger noted that the property was located in the UGA, meaning it was designated for the kind of rural development being proposed. She said Staff had not considered possible findings for denial, since their recommendation was for approval.

Haase expressed concern that allowing access as proposed was contrary to HORIZON 2020 and the proposed County access management standards. Lawson pointed out that statements in HORIZON 2020 were meant to be a guide, and these were not current regulations. He suggested that City and County Staff would not have recommended approval if there was concern about allowing access as proposed. Burress said the proposal was subject to the County Subdivision Regulations, which in turn required the Commission to consider a project’s conformance to HORIZON 2020. He suggested this made HORIZON 2020 language regulatory by proxy.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Jennings to approve the rezoning per Staff’s recommendation.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

There was additional discussion about considering the subject property as part of the larger parcel, which did have a (non-residential) form of access.

Staff responded to questioning that the subject property sits approximately 50’ above the river, effectively land-locking the property and making it impractical for farming or grazing land as part of the lager parcel.

It was noted that the proposed arterial access point would be located directly across the road from an existing farm access for the adjacent property.

Haase said the proposal was a good one and he had no doubt the County Commission would overrule a Planning Commission recommendation for denial. However, he felt this was proper order for approval, because the County Commission could consider elements that the Planning Commission could not.

Burress said the regulations regarding takings did not require that every section of a property must be usable.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to approve the rezoning of 3 acres from A & VC to A-1 and forwarding it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:

1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning resolution.

Motion failed, 2-7, with Jennings and Lawson in favor. Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs and Riordan voted in opposition. Student Commissioner Wright also voted in opposition.

Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Erickson to deny the rezoning of 3 acres from A & VC to A-1 and forwarding it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for denial, based on the following finding:

1. The proposed development would be contrary to the access guidelines of HORIZON 2020.

Motion carried 7-2, with Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor. Jennings and Lawson voted in opposition. Student Commissioner Wright voted in favor.

PC minutes 10/26/05

ITEM NO 10: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MOBILE ENVIRO-WASH TRUCK STORAGE; 677 E 1250 ROAD (SLD)

CUP-09-07-05: Conditional Use Permit request for Mobile Enviro-Wash Truck Storage. The property is located at 677 E 1250 Road. Submitted by Don Flory, applicant, for James L. Flory Trustee, property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Day introduced the item, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the relocation of an existing business. The request as proposed would retain the existing home and add a new structure for truck storage in the rear yard. Staff described the area as mostly agricultural in nature with a scattering of rural residences and a water tower in the extreme northeast corner of the subject property.

Staff had received no contact from the public about this request and recommended approval with conditions as listed in the Staff Report.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Don Flory, applicant, stated agreement with the Staff recommendation.

It was established that the Highway 59 improvements would be adjacent to the subject property and the current highway would serve as a frontage road to provide access to the property when future improvements are constructed.

PUBLIC HEARING

No member of the public spoke on this item.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Staff responded to questioning that the condition about a “reasonable [landscape] buffer” reflected further discussions between the applicant and Staff about spacing and species.

It was noted that the subject property would be virtually invisible from the highway.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Haase, seconded by Ermeling to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Mobile Enviro-Wash Truck Storage at 677 E. 1250 Road 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. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following notes:

a. The permit will be administratively reviewed by the County in 5 years (Calendar Year 2010);

b. The permit will expire at the end of 10 years (Calendar Year 2015), unless an application for renewal is approved by the local governing body;

c. Limit the use to the truck storage activity;

d. This facility is not for the purpose of repair or servicing of equipment other than for the applicant; and

e. The disposal of the sewage shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Department prior to operation.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.

PC minutes 10/26/05

ITEM NO 11: REVISED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR NORTHGATE DEVELOPMENT; SOUTH OF W. 6^TH STREET BETWEEN GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) AND THE SOUTH LAWRENCE TRAFFICWAY (SLD)

PDP-09-08-05: Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Northgate Development (aka: Diamondhead). This proposed planned commercial development contains approximately 31.005 acres. The property is generally described as being located south of W. 6^th Street between George Williams Way (extended) and the South Lawrence Trafficway/K-10. The plan proposes 198,714 gross square feet of commercial uses including a convenience store, drug store, bank, and five other retail buildings. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Diamondhead Limited Partnership, property owner of record.

Item 11 was deferred prior to the meeting.

7:20 p.m. recess Planning Commission, convene as MPO

PC minutes 10/26/05

ITEM NO 12: 2006 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP) (BA)

Conduct a public hearing to consider adoption of the 2006 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), a federally-required program that describes the work that will be done in the upcoming year on transportation-related planning tasks; the current status of transportation planning activities; and an outline of funding sources to accomplish these transportation planning tasks

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Ahrens explained the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) outlined proposed transportation projects for the following year, making these projects eligible to receive federal funding. Major items in the proposed UPWP included long-range transportation visioning, an update of the travel demand model, and an update of the long-range transportation plan (from Transportation 2025 to Transportation 2030).

PUBLIC HEARING

No member of the public spoke on this item.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Eichhorn asked if this was the appropriate time to again take up the issue of extending Peterson Road as a much-needed east-west arterial connection. It was discussed that the City Commission repeatedly made it clear they were not interested in pursuing this concept. The MPO could continue to make the recommendation without ever being approved for funding.

Mr. Ahrens said the need for an east-west connection was one of several issues that would be taken up in-depth as part of the Transportation 2025/2030 update. Scenarios would be created for several potential arterial alignments to identify which would best address the City’s need.

Some Commissioners expressed concern that the area was becoming more fully developed, limiting alignment possibilities, while the City Commission remained uncooperative about retaining potential alignments until a decision was made. Haase said he would continue to support the retention of right-of-way to accommodate all three alignments until one was chosen.

It was noted that the Comprehensive Plans Committee (CPC) had been directed to concentrate on a revision to the Northwest Area Plan, which would include the east-west connection issue as well as other traffic elements and wastewater. Members of the CPC anticipated a recommendation within 5 months on the three alignments proposed by the Planning Commission.

Ermeling asked if this was the time to consider re-designating N1750 Road as a minor instead of major arterial. Mr. Ahrens said this issue would also be considered as part of the transportation plan update.

Burress suggested the UPWP should include a project to study environmental impacts of the three proposed east-west arterial alignments. He understood in-depth environmental impact studies were expensive, but asked if a more general study could be done to compare the potential environmental effects of the three alignments. It was suggested that it would be more productive to establish what routes might receive City support before expending time and money on additional study.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Haase to approve the 2006 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and forwarding it to the Kansas Department of Transportation. Approval included authorizing the Planning Director or designee to execute necessary planning grant agreements and planning process certifications with KDOT.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Wright also voting in favor.

7:10 p.m. - Adjourn as MPO, reconvene as Planning Commission

PC minutes 10/26/05

MISC. ITEM NO. 3 DISCUSSUION OF ERMELING MEMO

The Commission did not reach consensus on whether it would be appropriate to discuss the issues raised by Ermeling at this meeting, since the Bauer Farms items (7A-7D) had been dealt with at the Monday meeting and no notice had been given to the applicant or the public that the issue would be discussed further tonight.

Some felt it would be valuable to discuss the matters while they were foremost in the Commission’s mind, but some were concerned about violating public notice requirements.

It was suggested the issues could be discussed more appropriately at a Mid-Month meeting, and the matter was ultimately delayed to a later date.

PC minutes 10/26/05

MISC. ITEM NO. 3 : RECEIVE CITY/COUNTY COMMISSION ACTION ON CHAPTER 8 – TRANSPORTATION

Staff explained the City Commission had returned this item to the Planning Commission, expressing concern that the Peterson Road alignment was added after the public hearing was closed.

The Commission was asked to place the item back on their agenda for reconsideration of their recommendation. Staff noted that the agendas for November and December 2005 were both quite full already.

It was anticipated that the County Public Works Staff would review the proposed chapter and provide comment in time for the December Planning Commission meeting.

ACTION TAKEN

The Commission received the document and directed Staff to place the item for public hearing on the December 2005 agenda.

ADJOURN – 7:40 p.m.

Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.