PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 21 & 23, 2007
Meeting minutes
_____________________________________________________________
May 21, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Krebs, Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins, Harris, Jennings, Lawson and Student Commissioner Robb
Staff present: Stogsdill, Day, Liebst, J. Miller, M. Miller, Patterson, Rexwinkle, Warner, and Parker
_____________________________________________________________
Receive and amend or approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of April 23 and 25, 2007.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to approve the April 23rd and 25th, 2007 Planning Commission minutes as written, with amendments.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
RECOGNITION OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
Ms. Stogsdill presented certificate plaques to Commissioner Krebs, Commissioner Haase, Commissioner Burress and Commissioner Erickson.
Commissioner Eichhorn thanked the Commissioners and wished them all success in the future.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
CPC: Commissioner Jennings stated the Comprehensive Plans Committee met on May 16th, and was continuing to work on a new southern development plan.
RZO: Commissioner Eichhorn stated the Rural Zoning Ordinances Committee had met briefly to hand out the draft revisions for the CUP Chapter and the Rural Zoning Codes.
Commissioner Harris stated the Planning Commission Orientation Committee had met the week of May 14th, they were continuing to refine the agenda, and hoped that Commissioner Johnson would make his appointments soon, to allow them to participate.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Sheila Stogsdill outlined the following communications:
Item 4 – 2008-2013 CIP
Misc.
· Changes to draft April PC minutes by Lisa Harris
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· Exparte:
Commissioner Eichhorn stated he sat in on the new Commissioner discussion.
· There were no deferral requests to consider
Commissioner Harris requested Item No. 2 be taken off of the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Burress requested Item No. 1 be taken off of the Consent Agenda.
PC Minutes 5/21/07
ITEM NO. 1: FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAGE MEADOWS, NW CORNER OF W 6TH ST & CONGRESSIONAL DR (PGP)
PF-04-06-07: Final Plat for Village Meadows, 17.824 acres located at the northwest corner of W. 6th Street and Congressional Drive. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc. for Village Meadows, LLC, property owner of record.
Commissioner Burress asked why a replat was needed.
Mr. Paul Patterson stated it was a condition of approval, and contingent upon the replatting of the property allowed for access to the property on the west, the consolidation of the two lots, and also allowed for access easements and drainage easements.
Commissioner Burress asked Mr. Patterson to explain the access to the west.
Mr. Patterson presented a slide of the current Final Plat (lots 1 and 2, block 3) and stated there was a 30 feet utility easement access across the property that did not continue all the way across. He said by having the access easement all the way across it provided for another access possibility and has access to overland drive.
Commissioner Burress asked if this was a utility access.
Mr. Patterson stated yes utility and also an access easement; the property could have a secondary means of access in the future, without it, it was a quarter mile from 6th street to Overland Drive.
Commissioner Burress asked if there was a drawing that showed what it would look like after the replat.
Mr. Patterson presented a slide that was the actual use permit that had been approved.
Commissioner Burress stated the block was still over 1100 feet, and asked if it exceeded the standards on block length.
Mr. Patterson answered yes, however we would want them to use west 6th street or Overland Drive.
Commissioner Burress asked how someone would get to the homes behind the block and stated it appeared that it was close to 1/3 mile to get to the home next door.
Mr. Patterson stated it depended on what would be developed to the west.
Commissioner Burress said it did not make sense.
Mr. Patterson stated the plat had been submitted in 2004 and reviewed under old codes.
Commissioner Burress stated this looked like the least compliant way.
Mr. Patterson said it provided for separation between the larger units and individual houses that would be there.
Commissioner Burress asked how pedestrians would get to the bus stop on the other side.
Mr. Patterson stated pedestrians would walk along the sidewalks.
Commissioner Burress asked if there was a sidewalk on the little cut through.
Mr. Patterson said yes there was a sidewalk on both sides of the street.
Commissioner Burress stated he did not think this was in compliance like what was originally thought and asked Staff if the access point could be placed in the middle instead of at the end.
Mr. Patterson asked if the commissioners wanted an access point or a pedestrian easement.
Commissioner Burress stated he would like to see a full road put in.
Mr. Patterson stated there could be a condition stating the access easement would be placed at mid-block.
Ms. Stogsdill said she believed the access point could not be specifically stated, and it should have been addressed at the time of the UPR.
Commissioner Burress agreed.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Eichhorn, to approve the Final Plat for Village Meadows, 17.824 acres located at the northwest corner of W. 6th Street and Congressional Drive and forwarding it to the Board of City Commissioners with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
PC Minutes 5/21/07
ITEM NO. 2: ANNEXATION OF 40 ACRES; N OF FOLKS RD (DDW)
A-04-03-07: Annexation of approximately 40 acres for the remainder of City owned property acquired for the Pump Station 48 project, located north of Folks Road extended. Referred to Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission for recommendation by the City Commission on 4/17/07.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Harris asked why the two pieces of property were not annexed at the same time.
Mr. John Miller (City Staff Attorney), stated in order for the Pump Station 48 project to process through the system as required, it necessitated the annexation of less than 10 acres last fall. The remaining 40 acres of property now needed to be annexed for the pump station project.
Commissioner Harris stated the Staff report did not state the criteria of assessing hindrance of orderly growth and level of services.
Ms. Stogsdill stated Horizon 2020 does not spell out that criteria, typically the staff would look at something that was leap frog and not an annexation that was in support of continuing development within the urban growth area, the property was being annexed because the City had constructed a pump station which was needed to address sewer capacity issues for property that was already annexed on the North side of 6th street. She said the criteria would be if it was a frivolous annexation where the City was just buying property without a purpose, clearly this was to support the continued development within the city.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei, to approve the Annexation of approximately 40 acres, for the remainder of City owned property acquired for the Pump Station 48 project, located north of Folks Road extended and forwarding it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
PC Minutes 5/21/07
ITEM NO. 3: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VESECKY FAMILY FARMS; 1814 N 600 RD (MKM)
CUP-04-07-07: Conditional Use Permit for Vesecky Family Farms, located at 1814 N 600 Road. Submitted by John Vesecky, property owner of record. This is a joint meeting with Baldwin City Planning Commission.
Item 3 was deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 5/21/07
ITEM NO. 4: 2008-2013 CIP
Approve projects to be included in the 2008-2013 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the City of Lawrence.
Casey Liebst, the City Budget Manager stated projects were submitted by various departments, the public and private developers. The Administrative Review Committee was formed and was made up with various representatives from city departments, including Commissioner Finkeldei. She said projects were organized by the year they were proposed by the departments, a total of 251 projects in the plan for all six years, and if the projects were in conformance with the City’s comprehensive plan the CIP would be forwarded to the City Commission, if they decided it was appropriate, they would formally adopt the plan. Select projects from the first year of the plan were then used by the City Manager to make up part of his recommended operating and capital improvement budget. If they did not conform, the Planning Commission should submit a statement that indicated how the project was not in conformance with the comprehensive plan.
Commissioner Eichhorn thanked Commissioner Finkeldei for participation on the committee and asked how items that had gotten ranked last year ended up this year.
Ms. Liebst stated the departments spent time deciding what year each project would be submitted.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if it was working.
Ms. Liebst answered yes.
Commissioner Erickson stated there was an error that read 4870 but should have been 48.70.
Ms. Liebst said the forms needed to be cleaned up and that not all departments have read through them.
Commissioner Harris stated there was a letter received from Mr. Mitchell regarding the work to be done on Iowa Street and asked how that project got into the plan when it had been denied by the City Commission.
Ms. Liebst stated the professional judgment of Staff was that something needed to be done to address the situation at some point, which was why it was pushed out to a later year.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated it was originally in the 2008 budget to be funded; but after the City Commission vote, it was pushed out to 2010 and it showed as a no score. According to Commissioner Finkeldei, the reason the project was not completely eliminated was because staff thought Iowa Street would need to be widened in the future. The description was changed in the spreadsheet, but not on the individual project sheet, which led to confusion. The description (in both places) should have been “Work on Iowa Street, Harvard to University” instead of “Left turn lane, Iowa Street, Harvard to University”.
Ms. Liebst asked if it needed to be changed.
Commissioner Finkeldei said yes.
Commissioner Harris asked what had been changed in the description.
Ms. Liebst stated it just read ‘improvements’.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated that it was the Public Works’ Director’s opinion that at some point Iowa may need to be six lanes.
Commissioner Harris asked if the committee was intent on targeting Harvard Road to University Drive.
Commissioner Finkeldei said the committee did not get that specific.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated this could be reviewed next year because it has a lot more time than Peterson Road.
Commissioner Burress commented that when the discussion of vacating the frontage road along Iowa Street for Home Depot was argued and approved, he did not think the land should have been given back.
Commissioner Harkins asked if a project was not on the list when the CIP was adopted, was there a way to amend the CIP or did that mean the project could not be constructed.
Commissioner Eichhorn said there was a certain budget threshold that projects have to be above to be included in the plan. Projects less than $50,000.00 were not typically reflected in the CIP.
Ms. Liebst indicated they could usually make it work and that smaller projects could usually be financed from the reserve funds.
Commissioner Burress asked if there had been consideration of bringing in an outside expert to review the CIP process.
Ms. Liebst indicated there has been discussion of purchasing and utilizing a software program to assist in the process.
Commissioner Burress stated, in his opinion, evaluation by an academic expert would be of more value than a standard product.
Ms. Liebst said there have been improvements to the process used in the last several years and that Staff had discussed a variety of options to continue to improve the process of developing the plan.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Mitchell stated he misunderstood the Planning Commission’s role in reviewing the proposed project was related to conformance with the Comprehensive Plan when he mailed the letter. He indicated that since writing his letter he understood the project had not been ‘scored’ and was thus a dead project. He said the title changed from left turn lane to “work” and that was less than clear. He stated Ms. Liebst said the words did not have to be exactly right but it could be made to work. Mr. Mitchell said he had been closely associated with the Iowa Street two lane for a number of years and it was his observation that Chuck Soules was determined to get a left turn lane there and he did not take comfort in it at all, in the fact the project was ‘not scored’. Mr. Mitchell said he would take comfort in it, if it was off the CIP, and it seems a little curious why that was not what happened when the City Commission voted it down, it seemed like it would have fallen off the CIP. Instead the wording had changed a little bit from specific ‘left turn lane’ to generic ‘work’), and he feared he would be back before somebody next year dealing with the same issue again. Mr. Mitchell said he wanted assurance that the issue was dead.
Commissioner Burress asked Staff if it would do any damage if Staff added ‘not to be used for a left hand turn lane’ to the CIP. He asked Mr. Mitchell if there was such a phrase, would it satisfy him.
Mr. Mitchell stated in one sense yes, but that would allow something else, something that was not defined as a left turn lane, but something more creative, like a median for example, and his objection to the present, or the past, left turn lane was that it does not address the long term problem of access to the University, to or from, and in fact if a left turn lane or some other device was installed there it would only enhance the problem, the long term problem, which was the failure of the University to create an easy traffic flow, as stated in the letter written. He said he looked at the University making 15th and Iowa a genuine gateway to somewhere; it is not now, it is a gateway to a huge bottleneck. Most people use Stratford and University Drive. What he hoped to see was the City to put pressure on the University to clean up their act, because it is their traffic and they should be helping to fix the problem.
Commissioner Burress asked Mr. Mitchell if it would help to have the phrase ‘not to be used for a left hand turn lane’ added.
Mr. Mitchell stated fine, there would not be a left turn lane but might be a median, next year when Public Works decides this is a good way to get some KDOT money.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Commissioner Krebs asked Ms. Liebst about the additional letter received from the North Lawrence Improvement Association.
Ms. Liebst stated she had already received a copy of the letter earlier in the process when the projects had been submitted.
Commissioner Krebs opened for discussion.
Commissioner Burress stated he would vote against this like he did every year. He said the ideal would be to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and there needed to be a plan that showed step by step on how to get from here to there. He said the procedure says it is perfectly ok to approve things that were not consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Commissioner Harkins stated he looked at it to satisfy his curiosity of how the comprehensive plan dealt with the purchase of Engine No. 6 and Ladder No. 2 and stated it was his guess it was quite a stretch.
Ms. Stogsdill stated there was a chapter on community facilities which included the fire/med response, so having equipment that allows us to continue to respond and keep the ratings would be part of all that.
Commissioner Harkins stated he agreed with the criticism of the process but had no suggestion on how to improve it and it is a challenge to put one of these together. He said he had some degree of discomfort in voting on this tonight, but will vote in favor of it, because he thinks it is the best effort the City could make at this point.
Commissioner Haase said there was a process in place at KDOT that instructed how to do this well and how to allocate funds to competing projects, a process that was mandated by the legislature over 20 years ago. He said the State of Kansas hired the RAND Corporation and they put together a process that depoliticized the allocation of road funds and recommended the City of Lawrence pick up a copy of the document and use it to guide the Capital Improvement Plan process.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated the comprehensive plan said a lot of things, but to grade each one and bring them together was a real struggle, there had been improvements in the process but there was still more to be made.
Commissioner Haase said the KDOT process involved peer review and developed criteria based on their expertise.
Commissioner Harris motioned to recommend approval of the CIP, with changes to the spreadsheet item about the Iowa Street work, to change it to ‘Iowa Street improvements’, description to ‘possible widening and sidewalk, no left turn lane’.
Commissioner Finkeldei seconds.
Commissioner Harkins stated it was his understanding that based on the materials in front of the Commission, they were to make the determination as to whether the projects are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that was the limit to their review.
Ms. Stogsdill stated it was her opinion the Commissioner’s responsibility was to decide if projects were consistent or not consistent with the comprehensive plan. She said the Commission had the advisory authority to recommend that the City consider making that change, but not sure the Commission had the authority to suggest that it only be approved with that change.
Commissioner Burress said the Commissioners had the power to say ‘we will approve it with a change’, or ‘we will not approve it with a change’.
Commissioner Harris said she was basing her change on the comprehensive plan saying cut through traffic was not desirable.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that was important to put in the motion.
Commissioner Harris stated the suggested change to the project description for the Iowa Street item was due to the fact that cut through traffic was discouraged by the comprehensive plan.
Commissioner Finkeldei stated he did not think Commissioner Harris was changing the document, only adding a clarification.
Commissioner Finkeldei seconded, with clarification.
Ms. Stogsdill read the motion to recommend approval of the CIP, with the following changes to the spreadsheet to say ‘Iowa Street improvements’ rather than ‘Iowa Street between University and Harvard’, to change the project page title to ‘Iowa Street improvements’, and the description to ‘possible widening and sidewalk improvements and no left turn’. She said to include the rationale that the clarification was due to the fact that cut thru traffic was discouraged in Horizon 2020.
Commissioner Burress wanted to clarify the vote was on the recommendation that the issue be held to be consistent with the comprehensive plan but was not the final determination.
Ms. Liebst stated that each project in the plan was in conformance with the comprehensive plan.
Commissioner Burress asked if a project was voted down does the Commission have the power to kill it by saying it was not consistent.
Ms. Liebst said he would have the power to put it in writing, forward it to the City Commission, and they have the power to decide.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei to approve projects to be included in the 2008-2013 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the City of Lawrence as modified by the changes to the text of the Iowa Street project noted above.
Motion carried 8-2, with Commissioners Harkins and Burress in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
Commissioner Harkins said he wanted to explain his ‘No’ vote. He stated he risked his family’s lives many times by making this turn on Iowa Street, something needed to be done to improve safety at this location and he strongly opposed doing nothing.
PC Minutes 5/21/07
ITEM NO. 5: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LAKESIDE STORAGE; E 900 RD (SLD)
CUP-04-06-07: Conditional Use Permit for Lakeside Storage, located at E 900 Road. Submitted by Robert D. Voth, for Windover Community of Lawrence LLC, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day presented the item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Stan Hernly, Architect for the project stated the Commissioners were familiar with the project. He said the proposal was to develop four acres out of the total six acres, but had nothing specifically planned for the remaining acres at this time. The four acres being developed was similar to what was proposed to the south. He said this was a viable project to move forward with.
Commissioner Burress stated he was concerned with the appearance along the southeast of the property.
Mr. Hernly said the two acres not being developed was between the frontage road and the portion being developed.
Commissioner Harkins asked if gravel could be put in the front two acres for vehicles and boats to park or would it be prohibited.
Ms. Day said the use of the area would be subject to a minimum site planning, once the zoning was published for the B3 district without a conditional use permit. She said the fact the applicant mixed both uses in the rear four acres made the entire area subject to the requirements of the conditional use permit not just the personal storage. She said if and when the applicant would develop the front piece and was to gravel it and use it in that manner without having site plan approval, it would be a zoning violation.
Commissioner Burress asked if the neighbors could take private action if they do not like it.
Ms. Day stated the application could be brought to County Commission for compliance issues.
Commissioner Haase asked why a standard landscape package was not required on the east side of the site.
Ms. Day said she does not recall what the specific language was regarding the landscaping on the east side, but believed it was not applied to the frontage area for the regular commercial area.
Commissioner Haase stated the applicant planned on the same landscape on the west and the north.
Ms. Day said there would be no harm in extending the landscape, but the property on the south did not continue the entire length of the property and it appeared to go to the storage unit.
Commissioner Haase stated that was not his understanding regarding the east side.
Commissioner Krebs asked if there was a larger piece of land and if the Commission had only seen a portion of it when they previously looked at the application.
Ms. Day said she was unclear about some of the screening.
Ms. Stogsdill stated it was not subject to the CUP.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated the Commission should be consistent and enforce the same requirements to the north.
Ms. Day said yes when it is adjacent to a residential area.
Mr. Hernly stated the applicant is not opposed to screening towards the east, and most likely the development on the front part of the property would not happen for years and it would be better to have screening back to the point being developed now.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated this was a commercial area and the building would hide screening in the back. He said it would only make sense to have it on the front.
Commissioner Haase said this was inexpensive landscaping. He said he was sensitive to the area and this was a good time for the commission to want to make this look better.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Mr. Hernly if he suggested nothing be done.
Mr. Hernly said he suggested connecting the back to the neighbors landscaping in the front.
Commissioner Harkins asked if screening on the north was required.
Ms. Day said no because it is abutting commercial.
Commissioner Eichhorn said he would like to thank Ms. Day for reading into the record that there would need to be work on getting access into that commercial property as it redevelops.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if the land was flat.
Ms. Day said there was a slight, gentle slope.
Mr. Hernly stated there was a small ridge on the front two acres which slopes off gradually towards the west.
Commissioner Haase stated he wanted the record to show the landscape standard was relaxed in terms of the minimum size of the planting to impose a standard that was not as financially restrictive.
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Harkins to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit CUP-04-06-07 for mini storage and forwarding it to the County Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact stated in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions 1, 2, 3 and 5. Condition 4 will be revised to indicate a landscape plan include an extension of the eastern line of landscaping that was required of the property immediately to the south.
Motion approved 9-1, with Commissioner Finkeldei in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmation.
PC Minutes 5/21/07
ITEM NO. 6: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE WOODS; NE OF N 1800 RD & E 700 RD (MKM/SLD)
CUP-01-01-07: Conditional Use Permit for The Woods – A Corporate Retreat, located NE of Intersection of N 1800 Road & E 700 Road, South of Lecompton. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for Edgefield, LC, c/o John Stewart, property owner of record. This is a joint meeting with Lecompton Planning Commission.
Item 6 was deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 5/21/07
ITEM NO. 7: RS10 TO RS7; .954 ACRES; 523-543 ROCKLEDGE (MKM)
Z-11-28-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately .954 acres, from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) to RS5 (Single-Dwelling Residential). The property is located at 523-543 Rockledge. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for LC Anuff, property owner of record.
Item 7 was deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 5/21/07
MISC. ITEM NO. 1:
Approve Revised PC Submittal Deadlines & Meeting Dates.
Ms. Stogsdill recommended changes to the meeting calendar and submittal deadline. She said the dates include the option of 2-3 weeks. She requested the August meeting be moved to the last week of the month.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Eichhorn to approve the revised PC submittal Deadlines & meeting dates.
Motion carried 10-0 unanimously. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated he would not be attending the September 24th meeting.
MISC. ITEM NO. 2:
Extension request for the Final Development Plan of Fairfield Farms, FDP-08-13-05 (SLD)
Ms. Day stated the applicant was requesting a six month extension of a final development plan that was approved under the prior code.
Commissioner Krebs asked if the sanitary sewer benefit district would be approved for the summer.
Ms. Day said yes that is the expectation.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the applicant was being held up by the city.
Ms. Day said she did not know.
Ms. Stogsdill stated it was a County sewer benefit district that was very complicated and had been moving through the process.
Commissioner Harkins asked if there was push back from the applicant.
Ms. Day said no.
Commissioner Burress stated the Commission did not have the power to approve the extension.
Ms. Day stated she thought it odd that one part of the code said administrative approval.
Commissioner Burress asked what Staff recommendation was.
Ms. Stogsdill stated the six month extension was given because it was under the prior code.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the developer was aware Staff made the recommendation.
Ms. Day said yes.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Jennings, seconded by Commissioner Haase to approve the extension request for the Final Development Plan of Fairfield Farms.
Motion carried 10-0 unanimously. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.
Consideration of any other business to come before the Commission.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Recess at 8:00pm until May 23, 2007.
PC Minutes 5/23/07
_____________________________________________________________________
Reconvene May 23, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins, Harris, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson and Student Commissioner Robb
Staff present: Stogsdill, J. Miller, M. Miller, Rexwinkle, and Parker
_______________________________________________________________________
COMMUNICATIONS
No new communications.
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte
· No abstentions
· There were no deferral requests to consider
PC Minutes 5/23/07
ITEM NO. 8A: ANNEXATION OF 536.88 ACRES; N 1175 RD & E 1600 RD (MKM)
A-04-02-07: Annexation of approximately 536.88 acres located at N 1175 Road & E 1600 Road. Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers, for the City of Lawrence, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Mary Miller presented the item. Items 8A, 8B, 8C and 8D were heard together. Staff recommended approval of the requested annexation of approximately 536.88 acres located near the intersection of N 1175 Road and E 1600 Road and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings found in the body of the staff report subject to the following condition:
1) Compensation be made to Rural Water District #4 for any rural water district facilities within the annexed area.
Commissioner Harris said Ms. Miller’s report was excellent then asked about flooding and how far water would come up according to the elevation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Mike Orth with Black and Veatch stated there would be a hydraulic analysis performed on the site, and they would comply with requirements which state there would be no impact on the flood plain. He said fill would be added to the site to bring the facility above flood plain levels.
Commissioner Burress stated there had to be an H & H study before issuing the plat.
Mr. Orth stated there was a hydraulic analysis done on the site which would be submitted to the Corp of Engineers.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress asked Staff if the plat could be approved without the H & H study.
Commissioner Haase stated the regulations govern the actual work in the area not the plat, and before excavation could begin the H & H study would have to be completed.
Commissioner Burress said the City was like any other applicant and they would have to obey the same rules or obtain a variance to allow the facility to take access from local roads.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that had been considered but in her opinion the GPI District was created for a mapping reason because under the old code there was not a district that showed where public facilities were located, and they were typically zoned RS in the previous code. The district was created to specifically be able to identify where public facilities were located within the community and provide that notice to potential buyers. There were numerous text amendments since July 2006. The language used to describe the GPI was written so that it would accommodate a whole collection of different types of public facilities and utilities. She said the wording exists more as a description than a requirement and a variance would not be needed, the language did not work as a catch all.
Commissioner Burress stated the word ‘shall’ attached to the statement in the regulations, was not usually used in a description.
Ms. Stogsdill suggested the Commission initiate a text amendment to modify the language.
Commissioner Burress said he believed there needed to be a zoning variance.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to approve the annexation of 536.88 acres and recommend approval based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.
Commissioner Haase stated the condition attached is a matter of State Law.
Ms. Miller said the condition appeared on other annexations and had just generally been a condition provided as notice.
Commissioner Haase said it was his understanding there was a State law that a municipality reimburses a rural water district when an event like this occurs.
Commissioner Burress asked if Board of Zoning Appeals had to approve the road access, what should be conditioned and how would it be conditioned.
Ms. Stogsdill stated it could be recommended there be a condition that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant a variance from the GPI standard prior to the City Commission considering the rezoning request or adopting an ordinance for the rezoning request.
PC Minutes 5/23/07
ITEM NO. 8B: A & V-C TO GPI; 536.88 ACRES; N 1175 RD & E 1600 RD (MKM)
Z-04-04-07: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 536.88 acres, from A (Agriculture) and V-C (Valley Channel) to GPI (General Public and Institutional). The property is located at N 1175 Road & E 1600 Road. Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers, for the City of Lawrence, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request for 536.88 acres from V-C (Valley Channel) and County A (Agricultural) Districts to GPI (General Public and Institutional) District and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following condition:
1) Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Price Banks appeared representing Dennis and Kayla Patterson, and stated they were direct neighbors of the site which had been called a water reclamation facility, but was still a sewage treatment plant. He said it would affect property values and would not be a desirable neighbor. Mr. Banks stated the specific issue was that this will have a serious impact on the quality of life and property values. He said it would be a huge industrial facility and more than just a water reclamation plant. Mr. Banks said the Patterson’s had invested a lot of money and sweat equity into their property and Ms. Patterson operates a home based business which is important. The noise and the lights would impact the neighbors and the quality of life. Mr. Banks stated the Patterson’s home lies outside the FEMA flood plain and the plant construction would affect that flood plain, that studies had been preformed in North Lawrence prior to the 1993 flood and there was flooding there that no one had anticipated. Mr. Banks said the Patterson’s also have a well which would be next to the sewage treatment plant and that E 1600 Road currently has very little traffic now, but the traffic would be huge compared to what it was now, utility trucks, sludge hauling trucks, and employees. Mr. Banks said he believed this was a bad idea and the Patterson’s urge the Planning Commission to deny the zoning, the Special Use Permit, and to recommend to City Commission they deny it also.
Commissioner Burress asked how far the Patterson’s home was from the site.
Mr. Patterson said it was the first home south of the site.
Commissioner Burress asked what the exact distance was.
Mr. Patterson stated his home was 1/4 mile or less from the site.
Commissioner Burress asked Mr. Patterson if he was concerned about the wells on his property and if there was an engineering study.
Mr. Patterson said no.
Mr. Banks stated the Patterson’s do not have the funds for an engineering study to be performed.
Commissioner Harkins requested Staff to show the slides of the site plan to show the location from the home to the site.
Ms. Miller presented the slides.
Commissioner Harkins requested the applicant to point to his home on the slide.
Mr. Patterson indicated his home as the first home highlighted on the map and stated the road to the north was closed by the township five or six years ago.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Mr. Patterson how many acres of land he owned.
Mr. Patterson stated he owns two acres, the home was built in the late 1800’s, and he and his family had been restoring the home to the original condition for the past ten to fifteen years.
Commissioner Lawson asked Mr. Patterson his address.
Mr. Patterson answered 1118 E 1600 Road. He said they could mitigate all the problems, like water, and flood plain, the property had been surveyed prior to this because the FEMA maps had the property in a flood plain at one time. Mr. Patterson said the property is four feet above the flood plain now. With an impact in the area it could back water up. He said that when his family first moved to the area it was flooded with water. The negative impact on the property was his biggest concern. Mr. Patterson said it had been a nice area but now the openness would be removed, lighting would be an issue, plus the noise and smell would be bad because it was a low lying area and the air does not move well.
Commissioner Lawson asked Mr. Patterson if he had the appraisal conducted.
Mr. Patterson stated the City provided an appraisal one year ago and determined the value at $280,000.00 or $290,000.00.
Commissioner Lawson asked Mr. Patterson if he knows the exact amount of the appraisal.
Mr. Banks stated the appraisal conducted by the City was $290,000.00 and that the home was built in 1849.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Staff if there was A-1 zoned property close.
Commissioner Burress asked if it would be reasonable to think there would be factory pollution 1/4 mile away.
Ms. Stogsdill stated Black and Veatch should comment.
Commissioner Lawson asked Mr. Patterson if he had stated he owns two acres.
Ms. Stogsdill said the property was nonconforming; it had been divided off many years ago. She said today it should be five acres, because the water source is a well, but it was a preexisting condition.
Commissioner Lawson asked if the property would be merchantable.
Ms. Stogsdill said yes.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the property had access to rural water.
Mr. Patterson stated the rural water line is across the road west of the property.
Mr. Scott Schultz, manager of Rural Water District #4, said the Patterson’s property was not in the water district, but the supply line is near. He said it was annexed by an island annexation and they would have to put the property into the district, with a meter costing $7,700.00.
Mr. Orth said there was a graphic that would represent the distance which was 1000 feet past a residential property; the Patterson’s property is 2500 feet away. Mr. Orth said there was another property that was closer and it was the one the consultants had focused on. He said one of the issues brought up was traffic; and he was not prepared to address a resolution for that. Mr. Orth stated biosolids would potentially be applied to the land and the lighting would be directed away from the Patterson’s home. Mr. Orth said the basins were very tight and he would not be worried about leakage.
Mr. Philip Ciesielski, Utility Engineer for the City stated the property was right at 3000 feet from the intersection to the property line and from the north property line to the intersection of E 1600 and N 1175 Road was right at 3000 feet.
Commissioner Burress asked how many alternative sites were looked at.
Mr. Orth stated Black and Veatch looked at 7 alternative sites but this was the most isolated and friendly site. He said the second alternative was the intersection of Highways 59 and 458 but there was a rural subdivision area just south and gateway issues. Mr. Orth said there had been over 12 public meetings and 25 stakeholder discussions.
Commissioner Burress asked the applicant if they would be opposed to a condition such as dumping sludge on the site.
Mr. Dave Wagner, Director of Utilities said he would oppose the condition, the 8th Street plant has had sludge applied in the past and that property was occasionally used.
Commissioner Burress asked if there was danger pertaining to sludge application.
Mr. Wagner stated the application of biosolids was highly regulated; the material has benefits like 5% total nitrogen. He said the City performs a pretreatment program which takes out heavy metals and the soil is tested for existing nutrients.
Commissioner Burress asked Mr. Wagner for the percentage of plant operations that had failed.
Mr. Wagner said he does not have figures.
Commissioner Harkins asked if the City had purchased the land.
Mr. Wagner said yes, 530 acres.
Commissioner Burress asked Staff if there was recourse for the neighbors if the H & H study was wrong.
Ms. Stogsdill said the Engineers and Attorneys should answer the question.
Mr. John Miller, City Staff Attorney said considering the hypothetical nature of the question, it could be difficult to asses what the risk factor would be. He said he does not know what action the neighbors could bring against the City.
Commissioner Burress asked Mr. Miller if he thought the City would have an adequate defense.
Mr. Miller said it would depend on why type of suit was filed.
Commissioner Burress asked Mr. Miller if the neighbor’s homes were flooded would they have recourse against the City.
Mr. Miller said no, the City would not be responsible.
Ms. Stogsdill stated Staff would not approve a final plat until an H & H Study was completed; that was a requirement of the subdivision of property in the floodplain.
Commissioner Haase said if he was in Mr. Patterson’s position he would make the same argument. He said he wanted to show no disrespect to the Patterson’s but there had been a tremendous amount of study and work on this project and it was time to move forward.
Commissioner Burress said he agreed but the neighbors should be given compensation. He asked Staff if there could be a condition stating there had to be a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Ms. Stogsdill said it could be recommended there be a condition that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant a variance from the GPI standard, prior to the City Commission either considering the rezoning request, or adopting an ordinance for the rezoning request.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to approve the request to rezone a tract of land approximately 536.88 acres, from A (Agriculture) and V-C (Valley Channel) to GPI (General Public and Institutional), and recommend approval based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:
1) Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried 9-1 with Commissioner Burress in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb voted in the affirmative.
Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to recommend rezoning with the condition of first going to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance, and recommend approval based on the findings of fact in the Staff Report, with a condition to change the language that said ‘shall have access’, and it not be optional.
Motion failed 2-8 with Commissioner Burress and Commissioner Harris in favor. Student Commissioner Robb voted against.
PC Minutes 5/23/07
ITEM NO. 8C: SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CITY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY; N 1175 RD & E 1600 RD (MKM)
SUP-04-04-07: Special Use Permit for the City of Lawrence Water Reclamation Facility, located at N 1175 Road & E 1600 Road. Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers, for the City of Lawrence, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Planning Staff recommended approval of SUP-04-04-07, a Special Use Permit for the construction of a Water Reclamation Facility near the intersection of N 1175 Rd and E 1600 Rd and forwarding of it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings presented in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1) Provision of a revised Institutional Development Plan with the following changes:
a. The title must be changed to ‘Institutional Development Plan’.
b. Boundaries of significant stands of mature trees must be shown. If they are to be removed this must be noted on the plan.
c. A riparian corridor must also be shown along Coal Creek. The existing trees may extend beyond the corridor. The corridor should not be less than 75’ which is the buffer yard required for a GPI District.
d. A 75’ buffer yard must be shown on the sides of the property which do not have the riparian corridor.
e. The floodplain and floodway must be delineated on the plan.
f. Either dimension should be provided which would indicate the distance from the plant to the property lines along N 1175 Road and E 1600 Road, or a note added to the plat which estimates the distance the plant will be from the property line.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Jennings, to approve the request for a Special Use Permit for the City of Lawrence Water Reclamation Facility, located at N 1175 Road & E 1600 Road, and recommend 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 Institutional Development Plan with the following changes:
a. The title must be changed to ‘Institutional Development Plan’.
b. Boundaries of significant stands of mature trees must be shown. If they are to be removed this must be noted on the plan.
c. A riparian corridor must also be shown along Coal Creek. The existing trees may extend beyond the corridor. The corridor should not be less than 75’ which is the buffer yard required for a GPI District.
d. A 75’ buffer yard must be shown on the sides of the property which do not have the riparian corridor.
e. The floodplain and floodway must be delineated on the plan.
f. Either dimension should be provided which would indicate the distance from the plant to the property lines along N 1175 Road and E 1600 Road, or a note added to the plat which estimates the distance the plant will be from the property line.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.
PC Minutes 5/23/07
ITEM NO. 8D: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE CITY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY; N 1175 RD & E 1600 RD (MKM)
PP-04-04-07: Preliminary Plat for the City of Lawrence Water Reclamation Facility, located at N 1175 Road & E 1600 Road. Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers, for the City of Lawrence, property owner of record.
Ms. Mary Miller presented the item.
Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat for Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility Addition and forwarding to the City Commission for acceptance of right-of-way and easements, subject to the following conditions:
1) Submittal of a revised preliminary plat with the following changes:
a. All roads labeled with existing right-of-way and right-of-way being dedicated with this plat shown. 15’ of right of way must be dedicated for N 1175 Road (7’ must be dedicated for the 500’ section of the road located 500’ to the east of E 1550 Road and an additional 2’ of right-of-way for E 1600 Road.
b. Utility easements must be shown on the plan or a note must be added to the plan stating that the location of the easements will be determined during the design phase of the project and the easements will be shown on the final plat for recording or will be recorded via separate instrument and shown on the site plan.
c. Topography must be shown on the plan with contour lines at an interval not greater than 5’ based on an actual field survey performed within the last 12 months and tied to the vertical control benchmarks included with the description.
d. Areas designated floodplain or floodway must be shown and labeled on the plat along with surface elevation of the regulatory flood.
e. The location and direction of flow of existing water courses must be shown and labeled Wakarusa River or Coal Creek. The waterways must be distinguished graphically from the property line.
f. Each zoning category must be delineated with acreage.
g. Boundaries of significant stands of mature trees must be shown. The wooded corridor along the Wakarusa River and Coal Creek must be shown on the plat, with dimension, as well as the stand of trees in the southeast portion of the property. If any of these features are to be removed, please note on the plat.
h. Statement on the face of the plat noting the method to be used for financing public improvements in the subdivision and providing references to statutes, covenants or other sources for further information on the details of such financing.
i. Note on the plat stating that the minimum maintenance designation will be reversed for the portions of N 1175 and E 1600 which are not being vacated if they are to be utilized for access.
2) Public improvement plans for the extension of utilities must be submitted prior to the recording of the final plat.
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Jennings, to approve the request for a Preliminary Plat for the City of Lawrence Water Reclamation Facility located at N 1175 Road & E 1600 Road, and recommend approval based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the conditions as listed above.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.
Commissioner Lawson stated it was remarkable there was only one person in the audience in opposition to the project and he congratulated the City.
PC Minutes 5/23/07
ITEM NO. 9: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE 8 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (JCR)
TA-04-04-07: Consider proposed amendments to Chapter 20, Article 8 (Subdivision Regulations)
regarding access (20-810(d)(2)(iii)). Initiated by Planning Commission on 4/23/07.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Rexwinkle presented the item. Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for denial of the proposed amendments [TA-04-04-07] to Chapter 20, Article 8 Subdivision Regulations for Lawrence and Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County regarding access standards to the City Commission.
A member of the public requested amending Section 20-810(d)(2)(iii) and proposed revised language for this section. This section of the Subdivision Regulations provides standards which state the maximum number of residential building lots or dwelling units that may be developed which have only one route of access (or access point) to an arterial or collector street. The applicant would like to increase the maximum number of lots or dwelling units.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress stated there was an issue that would keep coming up. He said there should be concern about health and there should be plenty of walking space.
Commissioner Haase stated he would like to give Commissioner Burress some recognition.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Eichhorn to deny the proposed amendments to Chapter 20, Article 8 (Subdivision Regulations) regarding access (20-810(d)(2)(iii)).
Motion carried 9-1 with Commissioner Lawson in opposition. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.
PC Minutes 5/23/07
ITEM NO. 10: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-05-03-07: Consider amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted. Initiated by Planning Commission at previous meetings.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joe Rexwinkle presented the item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Harris stated on page five of the report there was mention of a term called Significant Development Project and asked what that definition was.
Mr. Rexwinkle read the definition.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Jennings to forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-05-03-07] to Article 6 of the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” to the City Commission.
Motion carried 10-0 unanimously. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.
PC Minutes 5/23/07
ITEM NO. 11: AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 6 & 9, COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS (JCR)
TA-04-06-07: Consider amendments to the Douglas County Zoning Regulation (Articles 6 and 9) to modify standards related to fireworks sales. Initiated by the Board of County Commissioners on 4/16/07.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Joe Rexwinkle presented the item.
The County Commission received a request from the Douglas County Fireworks Association to allow for one additional day (increasing sales period from 3 to 4 days) of fireworks sales annually in Douglas County so that Douglas County fireworks vendors may be more competitive with vendors in neighboring jurisdictions. The Board of County Commissioners considered this request and initiated an amendment to Articles 6 and 9 as they pertain to fireworks sales regulations on April 16, 2007.
ACTION
Motioned by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Commissioner Haase, to forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-04-06-07] to Articles 6 and 9 of the Douglas County Zoning Code to the County Commission.
Motion carried unanimously 10-0, with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.
______________________________________________________________________________
ADJOURN 8:00pm