LAWRENCE DOUGLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMISSION
March 2006
Meeting Minutes
_______________________________________________________________________
March 13,
2006 – 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners present: Riordan, Haase, Burress, Eichhorn, Krebs, Harris, Jennings, Ermeling, Erickson and Lawson,
Staff Present: Stogsdill, Patterson, Pool, Day, Miller, and Ahrens
_______________________________________________________________________
MINUTES
It was explained that the minutes of the February meeting were not yet complete for review. Also, the provided January minutes were still in a rough draft form and Staff recommended the Commission comment on them and return them to Staff for continued work.
Burress requested the following revisions to the draft January minutes:
The Commission generally agreed that it would be suitable to approve the draft January minutes, with the understanding that additional clarifying revisions would be made.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Harris to approve the January 2006 Planning Commission minutes as discussed.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
CDC: The committee met on March 7th to continue discussions about neighborhood design. Then Commissioner Ermeling stated the committee is hopeful that the City may provide them with monies to obtain a consultant for assistance with a parallel code.
PCMM: The committee reviewed all of the public comment received on the proposed new development code. Working with Staff, the committee created a list of proposed revisions for consideration.
TAC: The committee discussed the need for committee bylaws to define its makeup and purpose. TAC also recognized that TIP proposals from Baldwin City had been mistakenly left out of the Douglas County TIP. The Planning Commission would be considering amendments to the TIP this evening to correct that error.
T2030: The committee further refined what would be an interactive forum to receive input regarding a long-range transportation plan. They also discussed future objectives, such as a diagnostic review of the current long-range transportation plan. This information would be brought back before the full Commission. It was noted that the T2030 Committee was growing in size, to include additional City Staff, as well as representatives from KDOT and the other incorporated cities of Douglas County. It was verified that additional members of the TAC Committee should be appointed by the Planning Commission Chair.
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 3 – Amendments to the TIP
Items 11A-11D: Zoning Overlay District between 8th & 9th Streets and New Jersey & Delaware Street Letters of opposition from
E-mail letter from Mark Kaplan in opposition to proposed development.
Letter from William J. Penny, Penny’s Concrete, expressing concern regarding turning radius and maneuvering of his company’s trucks if proposed development is implemented.
E-mail letter from Janet Good, President, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, expressing appreciation of historic preservation of this project, but concern for the neighborhood regarding the impact of the proposed project.
Memo from Staff regarding Downstream Wastewater Analysis for PP-01-04-06
Items 12 & 13 – Subdivision Regulations and Amendments to Art. 6, 7 & 8 of the Zoning Regulations:
Miscellaneous
Multiple letters of varied nature, not associated with any specific agenda item.
EX PARTE / DEFERRALS / ABSTENTIONS
CONSENT AGENDA
It was noted that Items 2A & 2B were deferred prior to the meeting.
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Haase to approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO. 1: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PETERSON ACRES; 2930 PETERSON ROAD (LAP)
FDP-01-02-06: Final Development Plan for Peterson Acres. This proposed residential subdivision contains approximately 4.6 acres. The property is generally described as being located at 2930 Peterson Road. Submitted by Abeln & Associates Architects for the City of Lawrence, property owners of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Haase to approve the Final Development Plan for Peterson Acres, subject to the following conditions:
1. Revision of the Final Development Plan to include the following changes:
a. Replace “Cercis Canadensis” with “Acer Tatarian” in the landscape schedule;
2. Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement;
3. Submittal of recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
4. Filing of the new utility easements by separate instrument and provision of Book and Page numbers on the face of the Final Development Plan;
5. Submittal of public improvement plans to the Public Works Department prior to filing of the final plat at the Register of Deeds Office.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO 2A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WAKARUSA OVERLOOK; WEST OF E 1900 ROAD & SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY (MKM)
PP-01-03-06: Preliminary Plat for Wakarusa Overlook. This proposed one-lot residential subdivision contains approximately three acres. The property is generally described as being located west of E 1900 Road (1057 Highway) and south of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Allenbrand-Drews & Associates, Inc., for Rebecca Thomas, property owner of record.
PC Minutes 3/20/2006
ITEM NO 2B: FINAL PLAT FOR WAKARUSA OVERLOOK; WEST OF E 1900 ROAD & SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY (MKM)
PF-01-02-06: Final Plat for Wakarusa Overlook. This proposed one-lot residential subdivision contains approximately three acres. The property is generally described as being located west of E 1900 Road (1057 Highway) and south of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Allenbrand-Drews & Associates, Inc., for Rebecca Thomas, property owner of record.
Items 2A & 2B were deferred prior to the meeting.
Swearing in of witnesses.
PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO. 3: Amendment of Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (BA)
8:20 p.m. Recess the Planning Commission meeting and convene as the MPO
The University of Kansas is requesting an amendment to the transit element of the 2006-2009 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The proposed project is for the acquisition of 5 busses. The project is being placed in the TIP in the event Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5309 funds become available.
The City of Baldwin City is requesting three projects be amended to the 2006-2009 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The projects are for federal funding under the Transportation Enhancement program for:
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Ahrens introduced the item, a number of proposed amendments to the approved 2006-2009 Transportation Improvements Project (TIP). These revisions were forwarded to the full Commission from the TAC committee. Staff explained that all proposed projects must be included in the TIP to become eligible for Federal funding.
Multiple amendments were proposed by the University of Kansas, as outlined the letter from Jim Long. Among these revisions were several related to a cooperative effort between the University and the City related to public transit.
Mr. Ahrens also referenced several proposals submitted by Baldwin City that were mistakenly left out of the approved TIP.
It was discussed that one of the proposals from Baldwin City requested significantly more funding for a smaller restoration than Lawrence acquired for a similar but larger project in years’ past.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the TIP amendments as presented by Staff.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Riordan spoke about the cooperative efforts taking place between the City and the University to study joint transportation needs and create an effective public transit system. While this system was not yet in place, both parties were dedicated to its creation.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was withdrawn to allow the public hearing to commence.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Harris to approve the Transportation Improvement Program amendments as presented by Staff.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Recess as the MPO and reconvene Planning Commission
PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO. 4: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING AIRSTRIP; 725 N 500 ROAD (PGP)
CUP-01-01-06: Conditional Use Permit request for an existing airstrip located at 725 N 500 Road. Approval of this request would enable the airstrip to be in zoning compliance with Douglas County Zoning regulations. Submitted by Darrell Norris, applicant, for Phyllis Norris, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP to allow the continued use of an existing airstrip located approximately one (1) mile southeast of Lone Star Lake. He described the surrounding area and the dimensions of the airstrip.
The airstrip had been in use for several years without a CUP, and had been brought to Staff’s attention when a telecommunications tower was proposed in the area in 2005. The property owner was at that time informed of his need to obtain a CUP to continue use.
Staff recommended approval of the CUP, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Darrell Norris, applicant, stated no objection to Staff’s recommendation and stood to respond to questions.
It was established that the telecommunications tower approved in 2005 would make it unsafe to use this airstrip only in certain weather conditions. Under FAA regulations, it would be up to the pilot’s discretion whether to use the airstrip when those conditions were present.
Burress discussed relocation of the existing airstrip to the north, so distance it from adjacent properties. It was established that topographic conditions made relocation impractical.
The applicant testified that he had not received any complaints from adjacent property owners at any time since the airstrip began use in 1979.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Lawson, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the existing airstrip at 725 N 500 Road and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO. 5: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR GOOGOLS OF FUN/GOOGOLS OF LEARNING; 4931 W. 6TH STREET (PGP)
UPR-01-01-06: Use Permitted upon Review request to increase child care enrollment from a previously approved maximum of 55 children to a requested maximum of 108 children for Googols of Fun/Googols of Learning, located at 4931 W. 6th Street. No exterior changes to the site are proposed. Submitted by Amy Gottschamer, applicant and owner of Googols of Fun. The Bristol Group is the property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a request for a Use Permitted upon Review (UPR) to allow a maximum of 108 children to be enrolled in day care at the facility. It was noted that this would be in increase from 55 children, as approved as part of the current UPR in June 2004
Staff said the increased enrollment proposal did not involve any changes to the buildings’ exterior or play area. Mr. Patterson said no complaints had been received from other area businesses or residents since the child care center began operation.
Staff recommended approval of the request as presented, subject to conditions outlined in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Amy Gottschamer, owner and applicant, spoke about the “wonderful response” the child care center continued to receive. She said the center had nearly reached its approved capacity and was now seeking approval to increase that capacity with interior renovations. Ms. Gottschammer said the proposed expansion was in response to the communicated needs of the public.
It was verified that the facility was currently approved and licensed for full-time child care.
Ms. Gottschamer responded to questioning that previous Commission concerns about truck traffic near the play area had been addressed with signage and gates. She said the play area and pathway to the play area had been approved by KDHE as more than adequate to meet the outdoor requirements for the proposed 108 children.
There was discussion about how long and when the children were/would be taken to the outside play area.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Lawson to approve the UPR as presented.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Eichhorn stated that he was the “lone hold out” when the current UPR was approved in 2004. He appreciated that the proposal met the regulations, but he explained he would maintain his opposition based on his continued concern about the proximity of a stormwater detention area and a truck delivery lane to the play area.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the Use Permitted upon Review for Googles of Fun/Googles of Learning at 4931 W. 6th Street 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:
Motion carried 9-1, with Commissioners Riordan, Haase, Burress, Krebs, Harris, Erickson, Jennings, Ermeling and Lawson voting in favor and Commissioner Eichhorn voting in opposition.
PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO. 6: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER & EQUIPMENT SHELTER; WEST OF N. MICHIGAN STREET & SOUTH OF I-70 (SLD)
UPR-01-02-06: Use Permitted upon Review request for a 150’ communications tower and equipment shelter, located west of N. Michigan Avenue and south of I-70. Submitted by Selective Site Consultants for T-Mobile Central LLC, applicant. Kansas Turnpike Authority is the property owner of record.
Item 6 was deferred prior to the meeting.
DRAFT PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO. 7: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ABERDEEN ON 6TH STREET; SOUTHEAST CORNER OF W. 6TH STREET & STONERIDGE DRIVE (SLD)
PDP-01-02-06: Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6th Street. This proposed multi-family planned residential development contains 115 proposed apartment units on approximately 9.59 acres. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of W. 6th Street and Stoneridge Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for MS Construction Co., Inc., property owners for record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the item, a preliminary development plan for an area that Staff had been looking at since early 2005. The Staff Report outlined a series of rezonings relevant to this proposal that had taken place on adjacent parcels. The Staff Report also summarized the proposed development as it related to its surroundings and provided clarifying examples of other types of development.
In response to concerns raised consideration of the rezoning for this property, Ms. Day brought attention to the distinction explained in the Staff Report between “buffering” and “transition.”
Staff requested the Commission provide direction on the issue of secondary access to the subject property from the local street, Stone Creek D rive.
Ms. Day described the location and property characteristics and reviewed the previous development applications for the property. She noted that this application concerned only the northern portion of the overall property along 6th Street.
Staff compared this proposal to the Canyon Court PRD as a reference, because Canyon Court is often sited as an example of incompatible multi-family/single-family development mix. Elements examined included building setback, building height, and elements such as multi-story designs, patios and recessed balconies as they related to rear yards of abutting single-family lots. A similar comparison was made to the Parkway Apartments PUD.
Staff discussed the existing and proposed drainage way and referenced concerns expressed by the Director of Public Works regarding drainage in this neighborhood when he met with the Commission in Study Session. It was noted that stormwater run off is currently contained within the drainage easements located along rear yards of the existing single-family lots.
Ms. Day spoke about Winthrop Court, which was constructed as a stubbed street. She identified two storm inlets on this street that would be used for the proposed development and explained how this would impact necessary right-of-way and easement division between the property owner and the applicant upon approval of a Final Plat.
In Staff’s opinion, providing a second access point for residents would be beneficial and was of crucial concern for Emergency Services.
Ms. Day said that, based on Staff’s understanding of Commission direction during the rezoning consideration, the proposal did not provide adequate transitioning within the development. It instead placed the burden of providing transition upon future development or redevelopment of other sections of the overall area, held under the same ownership.
Staff asked the Commission to provide more specific direction for the project, suggested they revisit the topic of density, particularly since the City Commission had approved rezoning with the condition of not more than 12 dwelling units per acre. It was pointed out that the applicant used a significantly different method for calculating density than was typically used. The standard calculation method resulted in a higher density than was claimed by the applicant.
Staff recommended denial of the application, because conditions to bring the proposal into a (Staff) supportable state would be numerous and overly complex.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, and Phil Struble of Landplan Engineering spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Werner said he had believed the applicant and Staff were closer to agreement than he was now to understand from the Staff presentation. He stated for the record that this proposal was significantly different from the Canyon Court PCD and he would like to discourage further comparisons between the two developments. He suggested that Tuckaway or Briarwood would be more suitable for comparison with this application.
Mr. Werner asked the Commission to consider how far this proposal had come from its original submittal. He discussed the modification from office to residential uses, the changes to place multi-family homes along the highway, the elimination of RM-D uses from the proposal, the reduction in density from 15 units per acre (submitted) to 12 units per acre (City Commission approved) and the steps taken to address concerns about back yards lining the gateway entrance.
Mr. Werner described the site plan, noting the use of building exteriors, orientations and parking areas to buffer noise and facilitate pedestrian circulation. He expressed surprise at comments regarding transitioning vs. buffering, saying he did not know of any PRD’s using single-family or even duplexes as a mixed-use element. Additionally, if the land to the south were included in this proposal, he did not think buffering /transitioning would have been raised as an issue. Finally, the development team felt that the proposed back-to-back relationship of single-family uses was generally appropriate.
Mr. Werner addressed the issue of the clubhouse, saying the pools would be used about 3 months out of the year and, even with 400 tenants, would not be utilized by many individuals. The applicant did not think it would be appropriate to “shove the pool next to a neighborhood”, per Staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Werner explained the applicant’s density calculations, which were done based on a deduction of drainage courses from the overall square footage. He then discussed various density potentials based on other housing types.
Mr. Werner said the applicant felt there were still a few issues to be discussed, such as the location of the clubhouse, but he believed this was a good proposal. He added that the applicant decided that secondary access to Stone Creek would be provided once he was told that, without secondary access, all of those buildings would have to be sprinkled to meet fire code.
Mr. Werner responded to questioning that the optional footbridge over the drainage easement was a public improvement element that was shown on preliminary development plans in case it needed to be discussed and possibly eliminated during other planning stages. Several factors would determine whether a footbridge, an industrial bridge, a sidewalk or no connection at all was provided. He said that, if a connection of some type was constructed, it would include handrails for safety.
Staff was asked to address the applicant’s method of calculating density after deducting drainage areas. Ms. Day explained that the Code specifically dictates the reduction of the overall square footage by the amount of the drainage easement. The applicant has, in this case, deducted a larger area identified on his plan as a drainage course.
There was discussion about what steps the applicant would have to take in order to significantly reduce the drainage easement by enclosing the drainage element. This would bring the density calculations of the applicant and Staff into rough agreement and would allow the applicant to develop the units proposed without violating the 12 unit/acre density cap placed by the City Commission. Haase asked which option was preferable: enclosed drainage with conforming density or an open drainage system with a little laxity on density.
It was noted that the lots to the south of the subject area were not developed yet, but were platted for single-family homes. It was suggested that it was important to consider that area as if it were already developed as platted, and noted that the adjacent area was under the same ownership as the subject property.
Haase said it seemed there were a number of issues that could still be cleared up between the applicant and Staff, and that Staff appeared to be asking for direction to help achieve that goal.
Ms. Day commented that, without project-specific direction, Staff typically tried to apply conditions or direction provided for similar development proposals. In this case, the transitioning Staff was trying to accomplish was based on the Commission’s direction in the Legends of KU project, Hutton Farms and the Stonegate Subdivision. Staff felt the Commission had been consistent throughout multiple developments with their direction on building types and transitioning.
Staff requested specific direction on the PUD section of the code that addressed reducing residential acreage to account for major drainage courses.
Mr. Werner pointed out that, although the City Commission revised the Planning Commission’s recommendation to put an overall density cap of 12 units/acre on the entire subject property, that rezoning had not yet been published.
The applicant did not want to place duplexes along the south side of the project, feeling the property was too small for than many different housing types. He suggested two-story duplexes with one-bedrooms on the west side would make a better-looking development. He requested guidance from the Commission about what housing types should be included.
Ermeling said she understood the challenge of mixing housing types, but she hoped to see “something new and different.” She suggested using architecture to make multi-family buildings look like houses, to ease the visual transition to actual single-family development. Mr. Werner responded that this concept had been discussed but the applicant was concerned how this would be received by the City. He verified that proposed elevations of the “big house” concept would be included on the final development plan.
Mr. Werner asked to make it clear that the applicant would prefer not to have the secondary access onto Stone Creek Drive, and could make the project work without this curb cut. However, the Fire Department had the final say in that matter and it appeared that the secondary access would need to be included.
Mr. Werner responded to questions about pedestrian-friendly elements:
5 minute recess
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mark O'Lear, 917 Stone Creek Drive, spoke on behalf of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association. He showed a video of the neighborhood’s stormwater culvert during and following heavy rains in August 2005. He noted that the culvert appeared to fill suddenly, not gradually as the rain continued. The residents were concerned that children playing in the area might be caught unawares.
The neighborhood was also concerned that the culvert was half-full during this rain event. Mr. O’Lear asked if the City was sure the culvert could handle the additional water runoff generated by the proposed development.
Mr. O’Lear said the applicant had stated since the beginning that he did not want anything but two-story buildings and that has been reflected in every plan the neighborhood has seen. Mr. O’Lear said Mr. Werner’s comments tonight seemed to indicate he was being “limited” to two stories by the Commission. Mr. Werner said he did not agree with this interpretation of his comments.
Mr. O’Lear said the Fire Department was not “forcing” the applicant to provide secondary access at Winthrop Court. Sprinkling the buildings and constructing a crash gate was a viable alternative.
Mr. O’Lear said the neighborhood understood this was a difficult piece of ground to work with, but suggested the property owner should have been aware of that fact when he purchased the land and the residents should not be punished for the applicant’s lack of “homework.”
It was established that no neighborhood residents had attended the presentation by the Public Works Director about stormwater in this area. It was generally agreed that this presentation made it clear that development on the subject site would either have no impact on or would slightly improve existing stormwater conditions.
Tim Van Leer, 5213 Branch Wood Court, agreed with Mr. O’Lear’s comments about the secondary access point. He said the applicant claimed the Fire Department was making them provide the secondary access for safety reasons, but opening this point created other safety concerns – specifically increased traffic through a family-oriented neighborhood.
An unidentified speaker living at 913 Stone Creek Drive also agreed with previous concerns about opening Winthrop Drive, noting the City Commission comment that a crash gate would be an acceptable alternative.
The speaker said the combination of single-family, duplex and a church all on one street seemed “odd” for a residential street and did not fit the continuity of the rest of the neighborhood. He asked how this development would look abutting Stone Creek and mentioned past discussions about the need for more-than-the-minimum buffering. He referenced Tuckaway as an example of good buffering and Aberdeen as an example of poor buffering.
The speaker said he understood the market demand for multi-family development, but he agreed with Commissioner comments earlier that the “same old, same old” was getting tiresome. He asked that some creativity be applied to make an aesthetically appealing change.
Corey Lang, 901 Stone Creek, said Staff had been most helpful in answering his questions about this project. He said his primary concern was that it appeared that the tallest buildings were proposed on significantly higher grades, emphasizing their height even more and making them visually intrusive.
Mr. Lang also expressed concern about the added traffic implied by this kind of development, particularly if the secondary access were opened.
Mr. Lang said this development seemed to be trying to include too many incongruous elements into too small a space, but he was afraid they were too far into the development process to do anything about it.
An unidentified speaker at 921 Stone Creek Drive spoke about abutting properties, saying he was concerned that lack of buffering, balconies and grading differences would significantly reduce privacy on individual lots.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Werner clarified his comments about the choice to pursue two-story units, saying that this was his client’s preference, with the understanding that this did not mean a design where the basement was considered the first story.
Mr. Werner said the plans should have been clearer than some sort of access to Stone Creek would be included. However, he stressed that full access was not needed or requested.
It was noted that Phil Struble with Landplan Engineering was available to answer any questions on the storm water, but he (Struble) felt that the Public Works presentation hopefully addressed most concerns.
Mr. Werner responded to questions from the Commission:
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Ms. Day reiterated Staff’s request that the Commission provide direction on the following points:
It was verified that the Commission had a fairly wide scope of ability to condition building, scale, and massing. Staff agreed with the applicant that duplex uses along the entire south side of the property was not a desirable design.
Ms. Day responded to questioning that changing to a four-plex would sufficiently address Staff’s concerns about density. Ms. Stogsdill interjected that substituting a four-plex across the street from the single-family homes still left transition questions about scale and massing, even though the footprint was smaller than currently proposed. She suggested access alternatives for those units.
Mr. Werner responded to questioning that the applicant would prefer to gather more Commission comment on the proposal tonight and return with a revised preliminary development plan. He asked if the item could be deferred for one month. Staff expressed concern that this would not allow adequate time to review the revised plans.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Haase said if the item were not deferred, he might need to recuse himself from the vote because he did not feel capable of making a decision at this time. He did not like to delay the project for two months, but Staff had legitimate concerns.
Haase said the community in general needed to be leaning toward developments of this type, but it needed to be done right and he did not know “how to get there.” He asked if the Commission was prepared to approve the proposal with what would necessarily be a lengthy list of conditions.
Eichhorn said he had reservations about the “large home” concept if it meant using more than two stories, especially abutting the neighborhood. It may fit the Code yet not be the best option.
Eichhorn commented that, if deferred, the applicant should return with detailed elevations showing how the buildings would fit the area in massing scale and style. He also suggested the low-key lighting be considered for the clubhouse.
Jennings said he preferred building continuity, but he did not care for the gradation of densities. He was not sure what could be done to address the neighborhood concerns about views between buildings (re: privacy), which were a continual concern from single-family neighborhoods City-wide.
Ermeling discussed using lighting and landscaping to mitigate the impact of the clubhouse.
Riordan said that, in his experience, intrusive lighting was more bothersome than the issue of second story views. Although having the buildings closer was not ideal, he preferred not moving the buildings.
Harris, alternately, encouraged the applicant to look at moving the building that may be a four-plex further from the road.
Erickson stated support for the two-story four-plex concept, noting that the majority of homes in that area were two stories.
Burress stated support for the following:
Burress said that a church use can generate fairly intense traffic at given times and he did not necessarily agree with the Code that this use was always appropriate in residential zoning districts.
Burress also pointed out that detention ponds were used to lower the peak level of stormwater, not to reduce its flow.
There was discussion about a suitable time frame for deferring the item.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Harris to defer the item to the April meeting.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
There was additional discussion about deferring the motion with an open-ended date. This would allow the applicant to return in one month if possible or in two months if more review was needed.
While the applicant would strongly prefer to keep open the possibility of bring the revised plan to the April meeting, Ms. Stogsdill expressed equally strong concerns about review time and staffing to meet an April meeting deadline.
Eichhorn stated for the record his preference that the Commission not defer the item but take action tonight. Lawson said he did not support the project in its current state but he agreed the Commission should take action tonight. There was discussion about how to form conditions for a possible approval from tonight’s discussion.
Lawson called the question.
ACTION TAKEN
The revised motion on the floor was to defer the Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6th Street to the May 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried 9-1, with Riordan, Haase, Burress, Krebs, Harris, Jennings, Ermeling, Erickson and Lawson voting in favor and Eichhorn voting in opposition.
PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO. 8A: PCD-2 TO PCD-2 (WITH ADDITIONAL ALLOWABLE USES); 5.05 ACRES; NORTHEAST CORNER OF WAKARUSA DRIVE & CLINTON PARKWAY (LAP)
Z-01-02-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 5.05 acres from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District (with additional allowable uses). The property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of Wakarusa Drive and Clinton Parkway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Off-Piste, Inc., property owners of record.
PC Minutes 3/13/2006
ITEM NO. 8B: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MIRACON PLAZA; NORTHEAST CORNER OF WAKARUSA DRIVE & CLINTON PARKWAY (LAP)
PDP-01-03-06: Preliminary Development Plan for Miracon Plaza. This proposed planned commercial development contains approximate 5.05 acres and proposes a car wash, convenience store, commercial/office buildings, and a restaurant. The property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of Wakarusa Drive and Clinton Parkway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Off-Piste, Inc., property owners of record.
Items 8A & 8B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Pool introduced the item, a request for rezoning to allow additional uses within an approved PCD-2, plus a preliminary development plan to accommodate those additional uses. She described the surrounding zoning and existing uses.
Ms. Pool explained the property was currently restricted to PCD-1 uses, plus athletic clubs from Use Group 15. Use Groups 13 & 14 were currently excluded. Additionally, commercial uses were limited to 12,700 square feet.
Ms. Pool, outlined Staff’s recommendation for denial, based on a determination that the request did not conform to the guidelines set forth in HORIZON 2020. Specifically, the proposal would make the overall commercial square footage for the intersection exceed the maximum set for Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC), and it did not include adequate buffering between commercial and adjacent residential uses.
If the Planning Commission chose to approve the request(s), Staff suggested allowing time for Staff to prepare recommended conditions to apply to the preliminary development plan, and to review the development plan for conformance with the Commercial Design Guidelines.
Ms. Pool said conditions would likely include but would not be restricted to:
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He provided a history of the project to explain how the current development proposal came before the Commission today. In summary, he described how the prior RO-1 zoning was changed to PCD-2 to better suit existing adjacent residential development. Then, in 1998 the Stoneridge Plaza PCD was approved in 1998 with 12,000 square feet of commercial space and 40,000 square feet of office space.
Mr. Herndon said the current office space market was too soft to absorb the approved amount of office space and the applicant proposed converting a portion of the office space to commercial square footage. This conversion would resulting a 1/3 increase in commercial space to 18,000 s.f. and a decrease in office space to 9,000 s.f. Mr. Herndon listed several of the commercial uses proposed for the revised development, including a convenience store with single-bay car wash and five pump islands, a two-story office/commercial building with drive-through bank bays and drive-through service, and a sit-down restaurant.
Mr. Herndon asked that the Commission understand that a slight increase in intensity was suitable on this 5-acre site because of the drainage easement and required peripheral setback. These elements created an adequate buffer, but reduced the developable land to only 60%. Mr. Herndon said this proposal was aesthetically “head and shoulders above” the existing developments on the other corners of this intersection. He also noted that the applicant had been in contact with adjacent property owners and had received no objections.
10:00 p.m. - The meeting was extended by 30 minutes.
Mr. Herndon addressed Staff’s concerns and questions from the Commission:
It was stated for the record that the Comprehensive Plan specifically recommends against expanding commercial uses beyond those already existing at this corner.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENS
There were no additional comments from Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Jennings outlined several concerns than led him to support the proposal:
10:30 p.m. – The meeting was extended 15 minutes
Krebs suggested the applicant try to create a development plan based on currently approved uses and square footage allowances.
Haase said he would like to see a revised proposal that more closely reflected the Commercial Design Guidelines. Ermeling added that there should be a different approach to bring the buildings closer to the street.
Burress said his concern was primarily the proposal to exceed the HORIZON 2020 limit on commercial square footage.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 8A
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Ermeling to deny the rezoning of 5.05 acres from PDC-2 to PCD-2 (with additional allowable uses) and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried 7-3, with Krebs, Ermeling, Burress, Erickson, Haase, Harris and Riordan voting in favor; Eichhorn, Jennings and Lawson voted in opposition.
Item 8B
Motioned by Eichhorn to deny the Preliminary Development Plan, based on a determination that it was unfeasible without rezoning (which was just recommended for denial).
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
The applicant was given an opportunity to comment on the proceedings.
Mr. Herndon asked the Commission to defer the Preliminary Development Plan for two months to discuss alternatives with Staff. This would save the applicant a lot of redundant work in creating an entirely new development plan for a new submission.
There was discussion about Staff’s time frame preference for a potential deferral. Ms. Stogsdill suggested three months would be appropriate for placing the item back on the Commission’s agenda. It was clarified that the applicant could submit revised plans sooner if they were ready.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 8B (con’t)
The motion to deny Item 8B was withdrawn.
Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Harris to defer Item 8B for up to three months.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
MISCELLANEOUS
BUSINESS
There was no additional business to come before the Commission.
11:00 p.m. – recess to Wed. March 15, 2006, 6:30 p.m.
_______________________________________________________________________
March
15, 2006 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Haase, Burress, Eichhorn, Krebs, Harris, Jennings, Ermeling, Erickson and Lawson
Staff Present: Stogsdill, Patterson, Pool, Day, Leininger, Pool and Zollner
_______________________________________________________________________
COMMUNICATIONS
Swearing in of witnesses.
PC Minutes 3/15/2006
ITEM NO. 9: 2007-2012 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
Receive suggestions and/or proposals from the public for projects to be included in the 2007-2012 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for the City of Lawrence.
STAFF PRESENTATION
David Guntert provided a brief overview of the purpose of the Capital Improvements Plan. He explained how projects were placed on the plan and later ranked. This ranking assisted in the creation of the City’s annual budget and kept projects “on the radar screen” that were important but could not be funded in the current fiscal year.
Mr. Guntert explained the kinds of projects that were typically placed on the CIP. He said the City departments and agencies had submitted their proposed projects and this hearing was an opportunity for the Commission and the public to do the same. Individuals were also welcome to submit proposals to the Planning Department in writing no later than May 28, 2006.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Hubbard Collinsworth asked that the CIP Committee consider including a project that had been discussed as part of the Mayor’s task force on homelessness – a 24/7 facility in the City with accessible public transportation and other services. He said he understood the funding was not currently available for this kind of facility, but he wanted to “keep the idea alive.”
COMMISION DISCUSSION
Eichhorn asked that the CIP ranking Committee consider giving high priority to the Peterson Road extension project.
It was verified that the Commission did not need to take any action at this time.
The Commission requested that Staff and the applicant present Items 10 and 11A-11D together. Items would be separated for public comment and action.
PC Minutes 3/15/06
ITEM NO. 10: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDEMENT TO HORIZON 2020; CHAPTER 6 (MJL)
CPA-2005-05: Hold public hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to Horizon 2020, Chapter 6 --- to address mixed use development in redevelopment areas. This item was initiated by the City Commission at their November 29, 2005, meeting.
PC minutes 3/15/2006
ITEM NO. 11A: ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT; BETWEEN 8TH & 9TH STREETS AND NEW JERSEY & DELAWARE STREETS (LBZ)
Z-12-80-05: Establishment of a Zoning Overlay District for the 8th and Penn Neighborhood Redevelopment Zone. The property is generally described as being located between 8th & 9th Streets and New Jersey and Delaware Streets. Submitted by BNIM Architects for Cinco Hombres, LLC & Pennsylvania Street Investors, LLC, property owners of record.
PC Minutes 3/15/2006
ITEM NO. 11B: M-2 TO C-5; 0.541 ACRE & M-3 TO C-5; 4.0 ACRES; BETWEEN 8TH & 9TH STREETS AND NEW JERSEY & DELAWARE STREETS (LAP)
Z-01-01-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 0.541 acre from M-2 (General Industrial) District to C-5 (Limited Commercial) District, and 4.0 acres from M-3 (Intensive Industrial) District to C-5 (Limited Commercial) District. The property is generally described as being located between 8th & 9th Streets and New Jersey and Delaware Streets. Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers for Cinco Hombres, LLC & Pennsylvania Street Investors, LLC, property owners of record.
PC Minutes 3/15/2006
ITEM NO. 11C: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 8TH & PENNSYLVANIA NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT; BETWEEN 8TH & 9TH STREETS AND NEW JERSEY & DELAWARE STREETS (LAP)
PP-01-04-06: Preliminary Plat for 8th & Pennsylvania Redevelopment. This proposed redevelopment contains approximately 4.541 acres. The property is generally described as being located between 8th & 9th Streets and New Jersey and Delaware Streets. Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers for Cinco Hombres, LLC & Pennsylvania Street Investors, LLC, property owners of record.
PC Minutes 3/15/2006
ITEM NO. 11D: FINAL PLAT FOR 8TH & PENNSYLVANIA NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT; BETWEEN 8TH & 9TH STREETS AND NEW JERSEY & DELAWARE STREETS (LAP)
PF-01-03-06: Final Plat for 8th & Pennsylvania Redevelopment. This proposed redevelopment contains approximately 4.541 acres. The property is generally described as being located between 8th & 9th Streets and New Jersey and Delaware Streets. Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers for Cinco Hombres, LLC & Pennsylvania Street Investors, LLC, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Zollner, Historic Resources Administrator, began the presentation by explaining the applicant’s intent to create a mixed-use development encompassing residential, office and limited retail uses. As part of this development, a portion of the subject area was also proposed as a new historic district within the City of Lawrence. She showed the approximate boundaries of the proposed new district, noting that a portion of this area was already listed on the Register of Historic Kansas Places and the nomination for the National Register was pending.
Ms. Zollner described the nomination process and the criteria the district must meet to obtain a national listing. She said that placement on the National Register would make the district eligible for tax credits to assist with rehabilitation efforts proposed in the overall development. These included a return to original brick streets in some areas and several building renovations, all within the identified boundaries of the proposed historic district.
Ms. Zollner said her department and the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association were excited about this opportunity preserve the buildings, neighborhood pattern and character of East Lawrence. She added that the Historic Resources Comm