April 2006
Meeting
Minutes
April 17, 2006 – 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners present:
Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris,
Staff present: Day,
Finger, Stogsdill, Patterson, Pool
MINUTES
Consideration of the February 2006 minutes was received and
approved.
EX PARTE /
ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUESTS:
Motion by Grant Eichhorn, seconded by Marguerite Ermeling
Abstentions: Lisa
Harris, Tom Jennings.
Voted No: David Burress
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Susan Erickson:
Community Design Committee – Met three times on development parallel
code
Grant Eichhorn:
Questions on CIP at Item
John Haase:
Transportation 2030 – Minutes in packet
Holly Krebs: PC
mid-month – further discussion……subdivision reg’s – 5/8-5/10 more meetings
Tom Jennings: CPC –
Met twice - working on neighborhood plan
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Stogsdill outlined the following communications:
Received communications regarding:
ITEM NO. 15 : ADOPTION OF SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS FOR
ITEM NO. 18: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS
4 AND 5 TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGULATIONS FOR
THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF
Transportation 2030 Minutes
Memo from Staff regarding the
Smart Code
Memo from Staff regarding:
ITEM NO. 2: FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LEGENDS AT KU, PHASE
2; SOUTH OF 24TH PLACE BETWEEN CROSSGATE AND INVERNESS DRIVE (SLD)
Letter from League of Women Voters regarding:
ITEM NO. 8: TEXT
AMENDMENT REPEALING OR AMENDING 50’ ETBACK
ALONG
ITEM NO. 12A: TO PCD-2; 45.31 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY
40 AND EAST OF
ITEM NO. 12B: A TO RO-1A; 31.12 ACRES; NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF
ITEM NO. 12C: A TO RS-2; 25.82 ACRES; NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF
ITEM NO. 12D: A TO RM-D; 7.63 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY
40 AND EAST OF
ITEM NO. 12E: A TO RM-2; 12.77 ACRES; NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF
Letter from Jane Eldridge representing applicants regarding:
ITEM NO. 12A: A TO PCD-2; 45.31 ACRES; NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF
ITEM NO. 12B: A TO RO-1A; 31.12 ACRES; NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF
ITEM NO. 12C: A TO RS-2; 25.82 ACRES; NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF
ITEM NO. 12D: A TO RM-D; 7.63 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY
40 AND EAST OF
ITEM NO. 12E: A TO RM-2; 12.77 ACRES; NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF
ITEM NO.
12F: REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MERCATO; NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF
Memo from staff
regarding ITEM NO. 12.
Letter from the
League of Women Voters regarding:
ITEM NO.
19: ADOPTION OF REVISIONS TO DEVELOPMENT CODE,NOVEMBER 11,
2005 EDITION
Letter from
Lavern Squire/
ITEM NO.
19: ADOPTION OF REVISIONS TO DEVELOPMENT CODE, NOVEMBER 11,
2005 EDITION
ITEM NO.
20: ADOPTION OF STANDARDS FOR RETAIL IMPACT STUDIES (AAM)
Letter from Greg
Crommer regarding:
Memo from Staff
regarding:
No Ex Parte
Communications
No Abstentions
CONSENT
AGENDA:
Item Nos.
1A&B; 2, 3, 5A&B, 6 and 7.
No removal of
items.
Motion to approve
Consent Agenda by Grant Eichhorn.
Seconded by
Marguerite Ermeling
Vote: Unanimous
PC
minutes 04/17/06
ITEM NO 1A: PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR WAKARUSA OVERLOOK; WEST OF E 1900 ROAD & SOUTH OF
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
ITEM NO 1B: FINAL
PLAT FOR WAKARUSA OVERLOOK; WEST OF E 1900 ROAD & SOUTH OF
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
ACTION
TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded
by Ermeling, to approve the Preliminary & Final Plats for Wakarusa
Overlook and forwardi the Final Plat to the
a.
The
Douglas County Surveyor signature blank must be revised to read: “Reviewed in
accordance with K.S.A. 58-2005” with a signature blank for Michael D. Kelly,
L.S., County Surveyor; Douglas County, Kansas LS No. 869
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of
the Consent Agenda.
PC
minutes 04/17/06
ITEM
NO. 2: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
LEGENDS AT KU, PHASE 2; SOUTH OF 24TH
PLACE BETWEEN CROSSGATE AND
INVERNESS DRIVE (SLD)
FDP-02-03-06: Revised Final Development Plan for The Legends at KU, Phase 2. This proposed multiple-family residential
development contains approximately 12.5508 acres and proposes 172
apartments. The submittal includes
revisions to a Final Development Plan approved this property in October 2004. The property is generally described as being
located south of
ACTION
TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Ermeling, to approve the Final
Development Plan for The Legends at KU Phase II, subject to the following
conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of
the Consent Agenda.
PC
minutes 04/17/06
SUMMARY
A-02-01-06:
Consider annexation of approximately 97 acres of land south of
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn,
seconded by Ermeling, to approve the annexation of approximately 97 acres of land south of
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of
the Consent Agenda.
PC
minutes 04/17/06
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
PUBLIC HEARING ON VARIANCE REQUEST ONLY:
ITEM NO. 4: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR STONEWALL
FARMS ADDITION; SOUTH OF
PP-02-05-06: Preliminary Plat for Stonewall Farms
Addition. This proposed eight lot
residential subdivision contains approximately 51.13 acres. The property is generally described as being
located south of County Route 438, and west of E 1000 (Queens) Road. A variance is requested for the intersection
of a local street with an arterial.
Submitted by Peridian Group for Venture Properties, Inc. and Stonewall
Farms LLC, property owners of record.
Presentation by Staff Sandy Day:
|
VARIANCE STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance for the intersection of a local
street with an arterial street as proposed with this Preliminary Plat for N
1780 Road with N 1800 Road and E 1000 Road. PRELIMINARY PLAT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat of Stonewall Farms,
subject to the following conditions: 1.
Revision of the preliminary plat to include the
following: a. Provision of
a revised preliminary plat to establish extra ordinary building setbacks to
accommodate future right-of-way and lot division; b. Provision of 35’ of right-of-way
along the west property line a minimum of 475’ in length; and c. General note number 7 and 13 are
redundant remove note 13. |
Applicant’s
Reason for Request: |
Residential development |
||
|
KEY POINTS ·
The property is located outside of the city limits, but is within the
·
Oak Ridge Estates, a platted subdivision, is located south of the subject parcel on the south side of I-70
and along the west side of E
1000 Road. ·
Water meters and hard-surfaced roads are available to serve the property. ·
|
|||
|
SUBDIVSION
CITATIONS TO CONSIDER ·
Additional right-of-way was required by KTA along a portion of the south
side of the property. ·
The application is generally compliant with Subdivision Regulations with
the following exception: 21-607.1 (e) intersection of a
local street with an arterial street. |
|||
|
ASSOCIATED
CASES/OTHER ACTION REQUIRED ·
Z-09-35-00; A to A-1; 50.96 acres – Stonewall Farms Addition at SW Corner of ·
PP-09-34-00; Stonewall Farms unanimously approved by the Planning
Commission on 10/25/00 and included right-of-way variance for E
1000 and intersection of local/arterial street. |
|||
|
PUBLIC
COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO PRINTING ·
None received prior to printing the staff report. |
|||
|
GENERAL INFORMATION |
|
||
|
Current Zoning and Land Use: |
A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) District; undeveloped. |
|
|
|
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: |
A (Agricultural) District to the
north, east, and west; large lot single-family
residences (developed under the five-acre exemption). A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) District to the south; Oak Ridge Estates single-family residences. |
|
|
|
Site Summary |
|
|
Number of Lots Proposed: |
8 Lots |
|
Gross Area: |
51.13 acres |
|
Right-of-Way Area: |
10.32 acres |
|
Net |
40.81 acres |
|
Minimum |
5.00 acres |
|
Maximum |
5.53 acres |
|
Average |
5.10 acres |
STAFF REVIEW
The subject property is located
within the Urban Growth Area. It a 51
acre tract bounded on three sides by public right-of-way and the south side
being bounded by KTA right-of-way (I-70 Highway). The property was rezoned in 2000 from A
(Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) District. A preliminary plat was submitted and approved
by the Planning Commission at the October 2000 Planning Commission Meeting. The
plat included two variances in that previous approval. These variances addressed the provision of
right-of-way width for E 1000 Road and the intersection of a local street with
an arterial street. Both variances were
approved. (See attached PC
minutes). A final plat was not submitted
for this property and the previous preliminary plat has since expired.
Zoning and Land Use
The property, which is zoned A-1 (Suburban Home Residence)
District, is undeveloped. The surrounding area to the north, east and
west includes a mix of both larger rural residential/ agricultural tracts and
smaller rural residential home sites.
The area south of the KTA right-of-way is a developing county
residential subdivision.
The applicant is proposing to create eight lots from one
parcel. With a minimum lot size of 5.00
acres, each lot exceeds the three-acre minimum lot size requirement for lots
within the Urban Growth Area that are served by a public water supply.
Streets
The proposed lots are served by a proposed interior street
system that intersections N 1800 Road/Farmers Turnpike (a minor arterial) and
As the minimum right-of-way requirement for primary
arterials within the UGA is 120 feet, an additional 20 feet of right-of-way are
being dedicated for E 1000 Road. The plat
proposes the dedication of additional right-of-way along the north side for N
1800 and along the south side of the property per review comments from
KTA. The applicant has also agreed to
provide the required right-of-way on the east side of the property for
A note has been included on the plat, stating direct access
to N 1800 Road is prohibited. Access from lots to E 1000 Road is also
prohibited except that access may be allowed for township or other public
facility uses. A similar note was
included on the original Preliminary Plat to accommodate a possible future
township fire station or other similar public use on
General roadway/street layout for this property and for the
several properties to the west located between N 1800 and I-70 were considered
by City and County staff with regard to future divisions for the area. The
extension of E 950 and E 900 south of N 1800 Road allows for that area to be
accessed without the creation of long single-outlet cul-de-sac streets. This
would require the dedication of additional right-of-way along the western
boundary of the subject property. Additional right-of-way would be acquired
with the redevelopment (annexation or subdivision) of the abutting properties.
The requested dedication will reduce the size of Lots 1 and 2 a small degree.
Staff recommends the Preliminary Plat be revised to provide an additional 35’
of right-of-way along the west property line. (See additional discussions for
variance and concept plan as well.)
Stormwater
The proposed Preliminary Plat includes a drainage easement
located between Lots 5 and 6 that ties back to an existing drainage course
within the KTA right-of-way and continues through the Oak Ridge Estates to the
south.
The
Utility Easements
Several utility easements are being dedicated with this
plat. A 15-foot easement is proposed
around the periphery of the development and occurs along the rear property
lines of the lots. Side yard easements
are not proposed. Additional comment with the Final Plat may result in the need
to provide side yard easements. At a
minimum staff recommends a 10-foot easement between Lots 2 and 3 centered on
the common property line per Section 21-609 (a). The proposed Preliminary Plat shows building
envelopes (side yard setback dimensions are not noted). Side yard utility easements are not included
other than the drainage easement between Lots 5 and 6.
Site Utilities
Domestic water service will be provided via Rural Water
District #6. An existing water line is located within the right-of-way of N 1800
Road. The applicant will be required to
demonstrate available water as part of the Final Plat approval process.
Sanitary sewer will be provided by domestic lateral (septic) systems. Both water and sewer disposal provisions are
subject to approval by the County Health Department prior to Final Plat
approval as part of the development process.
Conformance
Zoning Conformance: The subject parcel is located north of the City of
Comprehensive Plan Conformance: The preliminary plat conforms to
the following Horizon 2020 goal and
policies regarding development within the Urban Growth Area:
UNINCORPORATED
GOAL 1: Criteria for
Low-Density Residential Development within the Unincorporated Areas (Page 5-11)
Policy 1.1:
Consider Land Use Relationships within the Urban Growth Area (Page 5-11)
Policy 1.2:
Protect Areas Planned for Low-Density Development (Page 5-11)
The plat application specifically conforms with the
policies and recommendations of Horizon
2020 in that the subject parcel is located within the UGA and includes lots
sizes of three acres or greater.
Additionally the property is zoned for residential development.
Subdivision Conformance: The proposed Preliminary Plat is
consistent with the design of the previous approval but includes additional
right-of-way dedication not included in the previous design. The number and arrangement of lots is the
same as the 2000 version.
The subject property is bounded by both primary and minor
arterial roads and controlled-access highway right-of-way. The proposed subdivision provides direct
access to lots from an internal local street network. The local street includes a stub connection
to N 1800 Road and to E 1000 Road.
Section 21-607.1 (e) states:
“Local streets shall not intersect arterial streets.” Therefore, a variance is required to proceed
with this design.
The variance provision is found in Section 21-802 of the
Subdivision Regulations and has been revised since the previous consideration
of this property in 2000. Section 21-802
currently states: “In cases where there
is hardship in carrying out the literal provisions of these regulations (such
as design criteria pertaining to lot width, lot depth, block depth, etc.), the
planning commission may grant a variance from such provisions, except that in
cases where there is hardship in carrying out the literal provisions found in
section 21-706 (sanitary sewers) the appropriate governing body may grant a
variance from such provisions.” The
variance provisions are set out as follows:
(b) A variance shall not be granted unless all of the following apply:
(1) Strict application of these
regulations will create an unnecessary hardship upon the subdivider;
(2) The proposed variance is in
harmony with the intended purpose of these regulations; and,
(3) The
public health, safety, and welfare will be protected.
Staff Response: In this case the subject
property is adjacent on three sides by only arterial or highway
rights-of-way. The north and east sides
are bounded by County arterial roads and the south side of the property is
bounded by an interstate highway. No other access to the property is feasible
because a similar condition exists on abutting property to the east and would
result in the length of right-of-way exceeding the maximum length allowed of
1,320’. The abutting property is under
different ownership and is not part of this consideration. The proposed 70’ of right-of-way will
accommodate a residential collector standard and could accommodate three lanes
at the intersection if necessary. Future
division of the property could also assess the need for the provision of an
additional 10’ of right-of-way to bring the interior to an urban collector
street standard, if necessary in the future.
It should be noted that Chapter 8 of Horizon 2020 has been revised, but is not yet fully adopted by both
governing bodies, to address this situation at a policy level. The revised language states; “Direct access
from a local street, public or private, to an arterial street or principal
arterial street within the City of
This variance consideration is applicable to the two
intersections proposed in the Preliminary Plat for N 1780 Road with N 1800 Road
on the north and E 1000 Road on the east, as well as to an additional
intersection recommended for the extension of E 950 Road along the west
property line. The location of N 1780
Road entrance with N 1800 Road and E 1000 is less than the recommended spacing
found in Draft County Entrance and Intersection Spacing Standards (1320)
because the length and depth of the property are insufficient to meet these
standards. The dedication of
right-of-way for E 1000 eliminated the ability to provide separation of 1320’
between E 950 and E 1000 Road. The depth of the property is only 820 feet and
thus is not capable of meeting this corner clearance spacing regardless of the
associated right-of-way dedication for N 1800 Road. This situation was reviewed by the City
Engineer. The separation would be
adequate for City standards. However, it
was noted that intersection traffic at E 1000 and N 1800 on the northeast
corner of the site may be such that left turn movements are prohibitive in the
future.
The intersection of E 950 Road with N 1800 Road exists on
the north side (local with arterial).
The north properties are not platted and therefore there is no
associated variance. This is a condition
that has developed over time by establishment of the road classifications in
the immediate vicinity. This
intersection is located roughly one-half mile between E 1000 and E 900 Road. The extension provides access to three
abutting properties and accommodates reasonable future access to this
area. The County Public Works Director
has reviewed this situation with respect to the Draft County Entrance and
Intersection Spacing Standards and concurs with the findings. The extension of E 950 Road to the south
complies with the spacing between the proposed intersection to the east and a
future intersection to the west.
Staff supports the proposed variance for the intersection
of a local street with an arterial street as proposed with this Preliminary
Plat.
Conceptual Plan
Conceptual plans for this area include the future
improvement of
The subject property is located within Service Area 4, of
the Urban Growth Area. Horizon 2020
does not include any detailed land use categories at this time. The area is
also shown in the Northwest Area Plan.
That document shows this area as “Rural Residential”, which equates to
very low residential density.
The City has begun preliminary work to
update the Wastewater Master Plan for the Northwest Area. The subject property is included in the
boundary of that update. General assumptions
about land use for this area continue to be anticipated to be very low density
residential reflecting an average of one dwelling unit per acre or less. The proposed Preliminary Plat design is
consistent with this land use pattern identified for utility planning purposes.
Map Presentation.
A conceptual
plan, which shows a tentative layout of the subdivision following its
annexation into the City, has been provided.
The plan indicates that each lot could be further subdivided, resulting
in 31 total lots. These lots average
more than one acre each. Regarding
access, the 15-foot utility easement along the southern edge of the subdivision
is conceptually shown as future right-of-way in the central portion of the
subject property. Redevelopment would require the dedication of additional
right-of-way and easements to support a further division of property. The western boundary abuts a similar parcel
that is bounded by the extended arterial road (N 1800 Road) on the north and
the Highway right-of-way to the south.
Two options to access this property include extending the proposed
cul-de-sac to the west property line and/or dedicating right-of-way for E 950
Road south of N 1800 Road. This street
intersection exists on the north side (local with arterial). This intersection is located roughly one-half
mile between E 1000 and E 900. The
extension provides access to three abutting properties and accommodates
reasonable future access to this area.
As noted staff recommends the Preliminary Plat be revised to provide
one-half of the right-of-way dedication for E 950 Road along the west property
line.
Staff also recommends that the
preliminary plat be revised to establish building envelops to accommodate a
no-build area consistent with the concept plan to allow for future street
access and lot division. The purpose of
the front, side and rear setbacks shall be noted on the face of the preliminary
plat and are anticipated to be reflected on a future Final Plat for the subject
property.
CONCLUSION
The Preliminary Plat conforms to the County Zoning
Regulations and joint City/County Subdivision Regulations. It is important to note that the property is
within the Urban Growth Area, is adjacent to a platted subdivision on the south
side of Interstate Highway 70 (KTA), and is outside the FEMA designated floodplain. Water meters and hard-surfaced roads are also
available to serve the development.
COMMISSIONER KREBS: Conceptual Plan questions…..building
envelopes recommended?
STAFF DAY:
Yes, staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER ERMELING: Conceptual Plan,
southern route a consideration?
STAFF DAY:
They would provide a building envelope but are not required to provide a
right-of-way for future street at this time.
GRANT EICHHORN:
Point of order, allow presentation from applicant and then ask
questions.
MIKE KEENEY:
Venture Properties representative.
Reapproval of plat from 6 years ago.
Will work to provide no-build zones.
Agree with staff report conditions and ask for support.
(Swearing in
of witnesses by Ms. Stogsdill)
COMMISSIONER KREBS: Will
building envelope issue be on final plat
STAFF DAY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KREBS: Why is it necessary to have secondary access
point?
STAFF DAY:
Size of property, proximity to
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Absolute right to access your land. Would we need variance for only one road?
STAFF DAY:
Technically, yes.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Eventually road built on west end of
property?
STAFF DAY:
We would recommend they provide ½ of the right-of way for future road on
western end, adjacent property to rezone or annex, that additional piece of
right-of-way granted for it.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Entry way on north side of Farmer’s Turnpike
would go away?
STAFF DAY:
Staff has not said trade one for the other.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Can we condition this into this?
STAFF STOGSDILL:
Property is ½ mile in east/west direction. In long run you wouldn’t want an access ½
mile away once further subdivided. As
development pressure forces resubdivision you’re probably going to need
multiple access points for people to get out of subdivision.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Road on west end, can that be conditioned
into the plat?
STAFF DAY:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: Is internal road paved or gravel?
MIKE KEENEY:
Paved at this point, parts.
COMMISSIONER ERMELING: If entry is needed at some point to the
north, can it not be varianced in when it’s needed? A collector onto an arterial off in the
future, and still have roadway through this property for development.
STAFF DAY:
(Discussion of alternatives discussed with
STAFF DAY:
Discussion with county public works director, rather than doing
northern, doing southern road.
Discussion of future divisions………maybe monument features..how does this
relate to future division of property, not whether or not one was inherently better
than the other.
MIKE KEENEY:
Since six years ago spent a lot of work, designed……it’s been approved
before. Our proposal is reasonable and
best solution for access at this time.
If it works now and into the future.
(No public comments)
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
COMMISSIONER HAASE: Concept plan, 2 ½ acre lots after
resubdivision. Not what Horizon 2020
expects. Not what Rural Planning
Committee brought forward, or
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Opposing variance for access onto Farmer’s
Turnpike?
COMMISSIONER HAASE: Variance would be required to access either
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Proposing half of the variance?
COMMISSIONER HAASE: Case can be made that property cannot be
developed without variance under today’s code or series of driveway cuts that
conform to access management standards.
Given right development pattern, I would be compelled to honor the variance,
but don’t think development pattern is in keeping with Horizon 2020, not in
keeping with forward looking code that will be adopted in next few months.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: We should not approve a plat if it’s contrary
to Horizon 2020. Shouldn’t we vote
against this plat?
COMMISSIONER HAASE: I intend to for the reasons I stated. Horizon 2020 is clear that a subdivision
ought to be conceptionalized in a form that can be resubdivided in a urban
density when that parcel of ground is annexed.
This piece of ground current proposed, at best can be subdivided in 2 ½
acre lots and is not urban density.
COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: How many lots on conceptual development?
STAFF DAY:
31 lots.
COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: Adding extra road would be approximately 1
acre each.
STAFF DAY:
Discussed very briefly with drafts people from Peridian they were taking
a quick guess. We were thinking anywhere
from an acre to a ½ acres. Again very
conceptual, not analyzing it at level of detail of a preliminary plat. Basically get established the right-of-way
pieces and building envelopes. If it
stayed in this configuration or was divided down a little further, I believe
this area lies east/western and low density in the comprehensive plans.
COMMISSIONER LAWSON: Question for Haase: Didn’t feel proposed activity was in concert
with Horizon 2020, but staff report states does conform with zoning regulation
and joint city/county zoning regulations.
COMMISSIONER HAASE: Authority for incorporating provisions of
Horizon 2020 into decision process that subdivision regulations has sweeping
statement that say subdivision will be in compliance with Horizon 2020. 2020 says a rural subdivision will be done in
such a way that it can be resubdivided at urban density.
COMMISSIONER KREBS: Lowest density in Horizon 2020 is 6 units an
acre.
STAFF DAY:
No.
COMMISSIONER
STAFF DAY:
Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HAASE: Is this outside the urban growth area?
STAFF DAY:
No, it’s within the urban growth area.
COMMISSIONER HAASE: Horizon 2020 future land use map indicates
what?
STAFF DAY:
Very low residential development.
(Reading from Page 5 of staff report) RS-A would allow retention of
rural change. Concept plan allows us to
establish conditions for building envelopes and right-of-way on west end.
COMMISSIONER HAASE: Horizon 2020 says the subdivision which will
now be at very low density, be such a way to be redeveloped to urban
density. Language is still present, and
2020 would follow the very low density designation.
STAFF DAY:
One of things in
COMMSSIONER RIORDAN: Can staff state that if this had come in with
conceptual drawings, it would be different and many of Haase’s comments would
be accurate. But many of those concepts
really don’t follow through because it’s only 8 lots? This is not subdivided in such a way that it
precludes any concepts in the future, subdivision regulations. There are 8 lots here, none of which are
subdivided. Hard to state this would be
out of order with subdivision regulations.
COMMISSIONER HAASE: I cannot envision how it will be resubdivided
to urban density. It simply doesn’t –
the concept I’m comfortable, do a ghost plat, as though it will be incorporated
into the urban area. Once you have that
plat as the concept plan, work backwards to what can be done today without
compromise. I don’t believe that this
particular subdivision can be redeveloped to 6 units per acre, 4, 3……..best
case is something around 1 unit per acre which is low density once you have to
extend urban services to it.
COMMISSIONER LAWSON: Does applicant agree with Haase?
MIKE KEENEY:
I’ve tried to design for 3 units per acre and then work backwards. You end up with 50 foot county setbacks and
25 foot city setbacks. Hard to reconcile
5 acre lots now with 3 units per acre in the future. ½ acre lot is very reasonable urban density
for the fringe of the city. Point is we
have a preliminary plat on the table tonight.
Motioned by Eichhorn for approval of preliminary
plat for Stonewall Farms edition. The
variance.
Seconded by Lawson.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Assuming ultimate build out, do we really
need two access points?
STAFF DAY:
Staff supports.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Vote for variance and against plat.
COMMISSIONER HAASE: Vote for variance is vote for location.
(Variance approval, vote was 9-1, Haase against).
Motion by Eichhorn to approve preliminary plat
with conditions.
Seconded by Lawson.
(Vote 7-3.
Those against Burress, Ermeling and Haase).
PC
minutes 04/17/06
ITEM NO. 5A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GREEN TREE
SUBDIVISION NO. 3; NORTHEAST CORNER OF
PP-02-06-06: Preliminary Plat
for Green Tree Subdivision No. 3. This proposed 28-lot residential subdivision
contains approximately 6.266 acres. The property is generally described as
being located at the northeast corner of
ITEM NO. 5B: FINAL PLAT FOR GREEN TREE SUBDIVISION NO.3; NORTHEAST CORNER OF
PF-02-06-06: Final Plat for Green Tree Subdivision No.
3, a replat of Lots 1-15, Block two, and Lots 8-17, Block three, Green Tree
Subdivision. This proposed 28-lot
residential subdivision contains approximately 6.266 acres. The property is generally described as being
located at the northeast corner of
ACTION
TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Ermeling, to
approve the
Preliminary & Final Plats for Green
Tree Subdivision No. 3 and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of
easements, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of
the Consent Agenda.
PC
minutes 04/17/06
|
ITEM NO. 6: |
FINAL PLAT FOR ADDITION NO. 1; SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY BETWEEN O’CONNELL & |
PF-02-04-06: Final Plat for
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn,
seconded by Ermeling, to approve the Final Plat of Fairfield Farms East Addition No. 1 and
forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way
subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of
the Consent Agenda.
PC
minutes 04/17/06
ITEM
NO. 7: FINAL PLAT FOR
PF-02-05-06: Final Plat for
ACTION
TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by
Ermeling, to approve the Final Plat of Fairfield Farms East Addition No. 2 and
forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way
subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of
the Consent Agenda.
PC
minutes 04/17/06
ITEM NO. 8: TEXT AMENDMENT REPEALING OR AMENDING
50’ SETBACK ALONG
TA-01-01-06: Consideration of repeal or amendment of the
50' setback along W. 6th Street/US 40 between Monterey Way & Wakarusa Drive
(Chapter 21, Article 12). Initiated by
the City Commission on January 17, 2006.
(On 3/14/06, the City Commission returned this item to the Planning
Commission to consider alternatives for the segment between
Presentation by Staff Dan Warner:
The proposed text amendment that was heard by the Planning Commission
on February 22, 2006 addressed repealing the 50’ setback from
EXISTING ARTCILE
12
ARTICLE 12. BUILDING SETBACKS, ENFORCEMENT, EXCEPTIONS
21-1201. BUILDING OR
SETBACK LINES ON MAJOR STREETS OR HIGHWAYS.
Building and parking setback lines are hereby established on certain
major streets or highways as follows:
21-1202. APPEALS-SETBACKS.
Notwithstanding Article 8 of this Chapter, any appeal of the building
and parking setback line established for major streets or highways shall be to
the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board
of Zoning Appeals shall have the power to modify or vary the building and
parking setback line in specific cases in order that unwarranted hardship, which
constitutes a complete deprivation of use as distinguished from merely granting
a privilege, may be avoided. In the
absence of such a hardship, the intended purpose of the building and parking
setback line shall be strictly observed.
(Ord. 6146)
21-1203. ENFORCEMENT.
No building or occupancy permit shall be issued for any new building
within the plat approval jurisdiction of the City of
21-1204. EXCEPTIONS.
Any non-conforming residential building or structure located within the
50 foot building and parking setback, which is damaged by fire, flood,
explosion, wind, earthquake, war, riot, or other calamity or Act of God, may be
restored or reconstructed provided; said restoration or reconstruction occurs
on the original foundation. The building
or structure may not be rebuilt to a greater density than existed before the
damage. (Ord. 6146)
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS
STAFF REVIEW
The proposed amendment to Section 21-1201 of the joint City-County
Subdivision Regulations addresses how much distance a property owner along
Analysis
Staff was directed by the City Commission to examine options for
amending or repealing the extraordinary setback between
Option #1
Repeal the 50-foot rule and go to the controlling zoning district
between
Positive
Treats both sides of the street consistently.
This allows Bauer Farm to have a 10’ setback instead of the required
50’ setback, which is positive if approval of this development plan is viewed
favorably.
Negative
Allows Bauer Farm to have a 10’ setback instead of the required 50’
setback, which is negative if construction of housing units 10’ from the right-of-way
is thought to be too close.
It will make the north side in this section unbalanced with the north
side of the corridor overall and the separation between the north and south
could go as little as 165’, which misses the 200’ separation that has been
promoted.
Misses the 50’ plus ROW intent of the Western Development.
The south side could redevelop closer to
Option #2
Reduce the setback from 50’ to 25’ between
Positive
Bauer Farm would have to redesign in order to meet the 25’ requirement,
Bauer Farm would have to redesign in order to meet the 25’ requirement,
but it gives them more room than the 50’ rule would. This is positive if the redesign requirement
is thought to be positive.
It gets the promoted 200’ corridor intent in this section of
Negative
Does not treat both sides of the street consistently.
Misses the 50’ plus ROW intent of the Western Development.
Bauer Farm would have to redesign in order to meet the 25’
requirement. This is a negative if the
redesign requirement is thought to be negative.
The City’s legal staff feels this option is susceptible to a legal
challenge from the property owners on the south side of
Option #3
Reduce the setback to 25’ between
Positive
Treats both sides consistently.
Bauer Farm would have to redesign in order to meet the 25’ requirement,
but it gives them more room more room than the 50’ rule would. This is positive if the redesign requirement
is thought to be positive.
25’ provides less room for the south side to redevelop closer to
Negative
Unbalances the corridor and won’t get the 200’ intent.
Misses the 50’ plus ROW intent of the Western Development.
Bauer Farm would have to redesign in order to meet the 25’
requirement. This is a negative if the
redesign requirement is thought to be negative.
Option #2 was eliminated from consideration because it does not treat
both sides of
Option #1 and Option #3 are favored because they treat both sides of
the street consistently and help facilitate completing the Bauer Farm
project. One difference between the two
options is that Option #1 repeals the 50’ rule while Option #3 amends the
setback to 25’. Another difference is
Option #1 allows the Bauer Farm project to proceed as originally designed while
Option #2 will require the project to redesign in order to meet the 25’
requirement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends choosing either Option #1 or Option #3 and forwarding
a recommendation for approval of the proposed text amendment to
COMMISSIONER LAWSON: Reduction of setback results in 175 feet separation
between buildings? What about 200 feet
to the east of Folks?
Public Comments:
DAN WATKINS (Representing Bauer Farm):
Wish for the commission to consider option number one. This option is preferred by majority of City
Commissioners. There is plenty of right
of way for road improvements. The new
urbanism codes suggest about 135 feet of right of way to be used. The City Commission approved preliminary
development plan for Bauer Farm, and option number one would accommodate the
plan.
Commission Discussion:
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Could we
have an option that would result in 200 feet of separation, 37 and a halft feet
each way?
COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: That would not be advisable to do something
different on the north than what is done on the south?
COMMISSIONER ERICKSON: Has the
gateway committee met to reconsider?
What if Bauer Farm doesn’t happen?
Which option would control the zoning district to be 30 feet?
COMMISSIONER ERICKSON: Inclined
to relax setbacks because we can get the exact landscaping from the developers.
COMMISSIONER KREBS: What are we
giving up?
STAFF WARNER: Green space, not
the right of way.
COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: We would
only have flat green space…this would be
better for
encouraging developers. Would pick
option number 1.
COMMISSIONER HARRIS: What would
need to happen if we chose option number 3?
COMMISSIONER KREBS: The City
Commission had a vote of 3 for complete repeal.
they wanted the
buildings closer to the street which would create
slower
character. I am more comfortable with 25
feet. If the
preliminary
developing plan has to comeback, this would cause
more mixed
usage and pedestrian connections.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: It’s silly
to think that if the buildings were closer that this
would calm the
traffic of this road.
COMMISSIONER
affordable to
live out there.
COMMISSIONER LAWSON: Agrees with Commissioner Jennings, and is not
supportive of
the request to
redesign.
Motion by Commissioner Jennings to approve option number one. Seconded by Eichhorn. (Vote: 4-6 motion fails, those against
Harris, Burress, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs, Erickson)
COMMISSIONER ERMELING: Why haven’t we taken this past Wakarusa?
STAFF STOGSDILL: Because
Motion by Commissioner Harris to approve option number three. Seconded by Krebs. (Vote: 5-5, those against Ermeling, Erickson,
Haase,
Motion by Commissioner Burress to recommend 37 and a half setback on
both sides. Seconded by Eichhorn.
COMMISSIONER LAWSON: Asks Dan Watkins on the impact of this
recommendation.
DAN WATKINS: Not equal because
of the inequality of the right of way.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Thinks
that the City Commission can override.
(Vote: 3-7, those against Harris, Ermeling, Erickson, Riordan,
Motion by Commissioner Burress to retain the 50 feet setback. Seconded by Haase. (Vote 4-6 motion fails, those against Harris,
Ermeling, Riordan, Eichhorn,
PC
minutes 04/17/06
ITEM NO. 9: 2007-2012
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
Approve projects to be included in the 2007-2012 Capital Improvements
Plan (CIP) for the City of
Presentation by Staff Casey Liebst:
KSA 12-748 provides the basis for the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP),
which is a planning document that helps to guide City investments in
constructing public facilities or utilities that are in conformance with the
adopted comprehensive plan. The Planning
Commission’s role in the CIP process is to review the six-year plan for
specific public improvements (roads, utilities, buildings, parks and sports
facilities) or other improvements for conformance with Horizon 2020.
The Planning Commission forwards their recommendations for conformity
with the comprehensive plan to the City Commission for final action. Projects listed in the CIP may not be built
in accordance with the timeframe outlined in the plan. The City Commission decides which projects will
be funded when they adopt the Capital Budget as part of the annual budget
process.
THE PROCESS
This year was the second year of the new process developed last
year.
The departments again submitted their proposed projects using project
request forms. The forms were
reformatted this year. Membership of the
Administrative Review Committee was again made up of representative of several
City Departments and City Management, a City Commissioner, and a Planning
Commissioner. David Schauner served as the
City Commission representative and Grant Eichhorn represented the Planning
Commission.
The Committee again used the scoring criteria and matrix to review each
project at a series of meetings. Through
the Committee’s discussion, a consensus was reached for each score for all of
the projects submitted for all six years of the plan, with the exception of the
Water and Wastewater Utility projects.
These projects were not scored because they are prioritized through a
Master Plan and are funded by utility user fees and charges, according to a
rate study.
Unlike last year, the Committee was able to score non-utility projects
in all years of the plan, not just the first two.
The scoring matrix the Committee used is attached, along with a table
showing all of the projects and the scores they received for each of the
criteria.
Once the projects were scored, they were compiled into the draft plan
before you for your consideration.
Projects are included in the plan in the year recommended by the
department that submitted the project.
The Capital Improvement Plan consists of the following information:
·
Narrative explaining the capital improvement
planning process, the role of the Administrative Review Committee, the scoring
matrix used, the anticipated funding sources.
·
A summary section that includes a table showing
the relevant chapter(s) and policies in the comprehensive plan for each
project, the total cost of all project over all six years of the plan and the
scores provided by the Administrative Review Committee, as well as a summary of
the total project costs and anticipated funding sources for all six years of
the plan.
·
A section for each year of the plan that includes
a table showing the costs and anticipated funding sources for projects in that year
and the Project Request Forms for each project which include a description and
justification as well as a map showing the location of the project. (Many of the maps will be added at a later
date.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission make a finding that
the projects presented in the CIP are in conformance with the comprehensive
plan of the City and forward a recommendation to the City Commission for
approval.
COMMISSIONER EICHHORN said he appreciated being on the review committee.
Casey did a good job guiding him.
NO PUBLIC COMMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Eichhorn to approve the CIP, with the
addition of a new project as the first item in 2007, to be
COMMISSIONER BURRESS suggested it might be better to study the
environmental impacts of building the road first. He suggested they substitute a study of Peterson versus
COMMISSIONER HARRIS asked if it was premature to recognize
COMMISSIONER HAASE said no, there was an identified need for another
east-west arterial north of
COMMISSIONER ERMELING supported the amendment to put the road in the
plan, which would trigger the study issue.
There should be a vote on the amendment that would impact the study.
A vote for the addition of a new project to perform an engineering study
for the future extension of
COMMISSIONER BURRESS stated he would vote against the motion to approve
the CIP because of lack of data. There was
not enough information to identify the infrastructure plan to stay consistent
with the CIP.
Vote on the motion made by Commissioner Eichhorn passed 9-1, with
Commissioner Burress voting against.
PC
minutes 04/17/06
ITEM NO. 10: Amendment of Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) budget (WWA)
Amendment of Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) budget Revisions to the UPWP budget to
adjust funding for several work elements. As required by federal regulations,
funding tables are being revised for work elements and expense categories to
reflect carryover amounts from 2005.
(Item
10 was deferred prior to the meeting.)
PC
minutes 04/17/06
ITEM NO. 11: AMENDMENT
TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING CHAPTER 9 – PARKS, RECREATION, AND
OPEN SPACE (PGP)
CPA-2005-02: Hold public hearing on Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA) to Horizon 2020, Chapter
9 – Parks, Recreation, and Open Space. This
item was returned from the governing body for reconsideration. This
item was deferred from the January Planning Commission meeting.
(Item 11 was deferred
prior to the meeting.)
PC
minutes 04/17/06
ITEM NO. 12:
Presentation by
Staff Paul Patterson:
On October 7, 2005 and February 16, 2006 the Planning Commission held a
public hearing and discussed the Mercato rezonings and deferred action at both
meetings. A copy of the October and February Planning Commission minutes are
attached for reference. The applicant has now modified the rezoning requests by
decreasing their proposed PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District
rezoning from 55.9 acres to 45.3 acres and increasing their proposed RO-1A
(Residence-Office) District rezoning from 20.39 acres to 31.12 acres.
This staff report has been revised from the February 16, 2006 report to
respond to the applicant’s modified requests and to include the zoning
conversions which would be enacted through the newly adopted zoning codes
effective July 1, 2006.
|
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the following rezoning requests and
forwarding these 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 conditions: Item 12A [Z-03-05-06] requesting 45.31 acres from A (Agricultural) to
PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District be approved, subject to the
following conditions: Approval and filing of a Final Plat at the Register of Deeds Office; Submittal of a Preliminary Development Plan within 12 months; Approval of a Preliminary Development Plan by the City Commission;
and CC400 Restrictions per Horizon 2020 Maximum total of 184,640 Gross Square Feet of Retail Commercial. No one store shall occupy more than 175,000 gross square feet. The Preliminary Development Plan shall include a single store
building that has at least 40,000 gross square feet of commercial space. The sum of the gross square footage for all stores that occupy space
between 100,000 gross square feet and 175,000 gross square feet shall not
exceed 70 percent of the gross commercial square footage for the corner of
the intersection. Item 12B [Z-03-06-06] requesting 31.12 acres from A (Agricultural) to
RO-1A (Residence-Office) District; be approved using the Lesser Change Table
as 31.12 acres of RO-2 (Residence-Office) District, subject to: 1. the
approval and filing of a Final Plat at the Register of Deeds Office; and 2.
CC400 restrictions for the W. 6th Street/K-10 Nodal Area per
Horizon 2020. Item 12C [Z-01-10-05] requesting 25.82 acres from A (Agricultural) to
RS-2 (Single-family Residential) District; be approved as requested, subject
to the approval and filing of a Final Plat at the Register of Deeds Office. Item 12D [Z-01-11-05] requesting 7.63 acres from A (Agricultural) to
RM-D (Duplex Residential) District; be approved as requested, subject to the
approval and filing of a Final Plat at the Register of Deeds Office. Item 12E [Z-01-12-05] requesting 12.77 acres from A (Agricultural) to
RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District; be approved using the Lesser
Change Table as 12.77 acres of RM-1 (Multiple-Family) Residential District,
subject to the approval and filing of a Final Plat at the Register of Deeds
Office. |
ZONING SUMMARY (Gross Acres, includes zoning to center of ROW)
|
|
Approved Nodal Plan |
Proposed Mercato Plat |
Staff Recommendation |
|
Commercial |
34 Acres |
45.31 acres PCD-2 |
45.31 acres of PCD-2, subject to an approved Preliminary Development
Plan and CC400 Restrictions |
|
Office |
20 Acres |
31.12 acres RO-1A |
31.12 acres of RO-2, using the Lesser Change Table and subject to
CC400 Restrictions |
|
Res. Low Density |
42 Acres |
25.82 acres RS-2 |
25.82 acres RS-2 |
|
Res. Medium Density |
26 Acres |
7.63 acres RM-D |
7.63 Acres of RM-D |
|
Res. High Density |
0 Acres |
12.77 acres RM-2 |
12.77 Acres of RM-1 (Res. Medium Density) using the Lesser Change
Table |
|
TOTAL |
122 Acres |
122.65 acres |
122.65 acres |
NEW DEVELOPMENT
CODE CONVERSIONS
The new code would convert the proposed zoning districts to the
following districts, as of July 1, 2006. The actual rezonings for the property
would not occur until after the recording of the Final Plats and subsequent
publication of the Zoning Ordinances for the property.
ITEM 12A. PCD-2 zoning becomes PCD-2 Mercato with a specific Mercato
Commercial Development Plan which would require a Preliminary Development Plan
to be reviewed with recommendations by the Planning Commission and approval by
the City Commission. The Development Plan would need to adhere to the
requirements of the CC400, per Horizon 2020. The Final Development Plan would
be approved by the Planning Commission, if it is in conformance with the
approved Preliminary Development Plan.
ITEM 12B. IF RO-2, then becomes RSO (Single Dwelling Residential-Office
District). The primary purpose of the RSO District is to accommodate low to
medium intensity administrative and professional offices that are compatible
with the character of low and medium residential neighborhoods. The District is
also intended to be used as a transitional Zoning District between
higher-intensity commercial areas and residential neighborhoods. The District
allows detached dwellings, duplexes, attached dwellings and administrative and
professional office uses, which may be combined in the same structure (e.g.,
office on the ground floor or at the front of the building with dwelling units
on upper floors or toward the rear of the building). The maximum density
requirement would be 15 dwelling units per acre. A site plan would be required,
which would be administratively reviewed for approval. Page 4-5 of the new code
has retail sales - general as a permitted use within the RSO District;
therefore staff is recommending that this rezoning also be contingent upon
CC400 restrictions for this area per Horizon 2020.
ITEM 12C. RS-2 becomes RS7 (Single-Dwelling Residential District –
7,000 Square Feet). The primary purpose of the RS Districts is to accommodate
single Dwelling Units on individual Lots. The Districts are intended to create,
maintain and promote housing opportunities for individual households, although
they do permit nonresidential uses that are compatible with residential
neighborhoods. Individual building permits would be processed by Neighborhood
Resources.
ITEM 12D. RM-D becomes RM12D (Multiple-Dwelling Residential Districts).
The primary purpose of the RM districts is to accommodate multi-Dwelling
housing. The Districts are intended to create, maintain and promote higher
Density housing opportunities in areas with good transportation Access. The net
density (excluding right-of-way of public dedicated streets) of the RM12D
District is 12 Dwelling Units per acre. Individual building permits would be
processed by Neighborhood Resources.
ITEM 12E. If RM-1 then becomes RM12 (Multiple-Dwelling Residential
District). The primary purpose of the RM
districts is to accommodate multi-Dwelling housing. The Districts are intended
to create, maintain and promote higher Density housing opportunities in areas
with good transportation Access. The net density (excluding right-of-way of
public dedicated streets) of the RM12D District is 12 Dwelling Units per acre.
Site plans for the multiple-dwelling units would be administratively reviewed
for approval.
|
Applicant’s
Reason for Request: |
“Continued
demand for growth on the west side of |
|
KEY POINTS In October 2005, Annexation [A-01-02-05] was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and will be considered by the City Commission in conjunction with these rezonings and the Preliminary Plat. The property is within the Nodal Plan for the intersection of W. 6th
Street and Kansas Highway K-10, approved by the City of on November 11, 2003 http://www.lawrenceplanning.org/documents/nodalplan6thslt.pdf
. The Preliminary Plat has two phases. The first phase would be able to be served by the existing wastewater pump station. The development of the second phase would need to be delayed until additional wastewater capacity is developed in accordance with a proposed 2006 update to the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan. Rezonings are being submitted in conjunction with the Mercato Preliminary Plat and annexation of the northwest portion of the property. Development of the property will require both on-site and off-site dedications and installation of Drive through the development and then turning to the northern property boundary. The applicant provided an updated Traffic Impact Study; and a proposed phasing of the
development based upon the availability of wastewater capacity
(transmission and processing of wastewater). |
|
GOLDEN FACTORS
TO CONSIDER ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTY NEARBY The properties nearby are currently zoned A (Agriculture) and are in
agricultural use or undeveloped. APPROPRIATENESS OF REQUESTED ZONING This area was annexed into the
City in 2001 (excluding the northwest 17.2 acre portion located outside of
the Lawrence City limits [A-01-02-05]), and is anticipated to gradually be
developed over the next 5-10 years. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS The proposal will need to conform to the approved Nodal Plan for the
intersection of The proposal will need to conform to the approved Transportation 2025
Plan. The proposed transition of land uses conforms to land use
recommendations found in Horizon 2020. |
|
ASSOCIATED
CASES/OTHER ACTION REQUIRED Annexation decision by the City Commission [A-01-02-05] Zoning decision by the City Commission [Z-03-(05,06)-06] and
[Z-01-(10,11,12)-05] Adoption of Zoning Ordinances by the City Commission and Ordinance
publications. Preliminary [PP-01-02-06] and Final Plat approvals. Preliminary and Final Development Plan approvals prior to development
of property zoned Planned Commercial Development. Final Plat easements and dedications of road rights-of-way would need
to be accepted by the City Commission. Approved Site Plans would be required for property zoned Residence-Office
and Multiple Family Residential. Approval of public infrastructure plans. Building permit(s) would need to be obtained from Neighborhood
Resources. |
|
PUBLIC
COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO PRINTING Public comments are contained within the attached minutes from the
September/October 2005 and February 2006 Planning Commission meetings. |
GENERAL INFORMATION
Current Zoning and Land Use: A
(Agricultural) District; One existing single-family house to be removed,
agriculture use and undeveloped land.
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: North
– A (Agricultural) District; Agriculture uses and undeveloped land.
West – A (Agricultural) District;
East – A (Agricultural) and Pending RS-2 (Single-Family Residential)
and Pending RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential) Districts; Proposed extension of
George Williams Way Arterial, across conditionally approved Single-Family
and Multiple-Family portion of Oregon
Trail Preliminary Plat and undeveloped 5.4 acre parcel along W. 6th
Street.
South – W. 6th Street/U.S. Highway 40; Across W. 6th
Street proposed PCD-2 Northgate Commercial Development (AKA Diamondhead).
I. ZONING AND USES OF
PROPERTY NEARBY
Staff Finding. Most of the
properties nearby are currently zoned A (Agriculture) with agriculture uses and
undeveloped land. Conditionally approved RS-2 and RM-1 zoned Oregon Trail
Subdivision is located to the east across proposed extension of
II. CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The requested 122.65 acre Mercato development is located on two parcels
at the northeast intersection of
The entire development site is approximately 1,700 to 2,300 feet wide
(east to west) by approximately 2,500 feet deep (north to south). The
The 17.52 acre northwest portion of the proposed development (contained
in a separate parcel) is currently located outside of the Lawrence City Limits.
An annexation request [A-01-02-05] was recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission in October of 2005. The applicant has consented to allowing the
annexation request to be deferred to be heard by the City Commission in
conjunction with these rezoning requests and the Preliminary Plat for Mercato
[PP-01-02-06].
In response to KDOT planned improvements to
The eastern property line is located at the proposed extension of
George
To the north of the property are large unplatted parcels of land with
County A (Agricultural) District zoning that are located outside of the Lawrence
City Limits and just outside of the boundary of Unified School District 497
(Lawrence).
The western property line is along the eastern frontage road of the
To the south is
Staff Finding - The subject property is located at the
northeast corner of the intersection of
The proposed Mercato development site is within the Nodal Plan for
III. SUITABILITY OF SUBJECT
PROPERTY FOR THE USES TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED
Applicant’s
Response: “Although generally suitable for the current use restriction in the
short term, when studied in the context of associated rezoning request,
adjacent development, as well as
The subject property was annexed into the City in 2001 to facilitate
the City’s financing of the W.6th Street/U.S. Highway 40 improvement
project and retained the County zoning designation of A (Agricultural)
District. The Code states that territory
to be annexed into the City will retain its County zoning designation, but that
a rezoning request shall be initiated by the property owner or the city. A rezoning was not requested, and the
property has retained the County zoning designation. The A (Agricultural) District is no longer
appropriate development of land incorporated into
For the northeast corner of the
Access/Public Improvements
ITEM NO. 12A: A TO
PCD-2; 45.31 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF
Z-03-05-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 45.31 acres from A
(Agriculture) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District. The property is generally described as being
located north of Highway 40 and east of
Staff presentation of Item 12A:
This property is unplatted. The owners have submitted the Mercato
Preliminary Plat [PP-01-01-06] in conjunction with these rezoning requests. The
plat will need to address access, easements, rights-of-way dedications and
public improvements for the property.
The proposed Planned Commercial Development zoning could provide for an
appropriate land use. In staff’s
opinion, the property may be suitable for the proposed PCD-2 zoning category.
PCD-2 zoning allows for a number of different types of land uses, which could
include the following:
Residential dwelling units (attached, detached, or mixed)
The permitted maximum dwelling unit density per net residential acre
shall not exceed 35 dwelling units.
Any use permitted in Use Group 7 – Community Facilities – Public Utilities.
Use Group 8 – Temporary Uses
Use Group 9 – Professional Offices
Use Group 9A – Limited Services
Use Group 11 – Inner Neighborhood Commercial Uses
Use Group 12 – Retail Stores – Personal services
Use Group 13 – Automotive Services; Retail Sales; Other
Use Group 14 – Retail-Wholesale Sales and Services
Use Group 15 – Amusement, Recreational and Cultural Facilities
A minimum of 20% of the planned commercial development area is required
to be common open space for open air and recreation uses.
The request is for 45.31 gross acres of PCD-2 (Planned Commercial
Development) District.
The Nodal Plan for the Intersection of
Per Chapter 6 of Horizon 2020,
Community Center Under 400,000 restrictions would include the following
limitations which would need to be applied to this development:
Maximum total of 184,640 Gross Square Feet of Retail Commercial
(400,000 x .95 at any two corners of the node <southeast and northeast>
less the Northgate Preliminary Development Plan’s retail commercial 195,360
= 184,640 maximum allowed Gross Square
Feet of Retail Commercial for Mercato).
No one store shall occupy more than 175,000 gross square feet.
The Preliminary Development Plan shall include a single store building
that has at least 40,000 gross square feet of commercial space.
The sum of the gross square footage for all stores that occupy space
between 100,000 gross square feet and 175,000 gross square feet shall not
exceed 70 percent of the gross commercial square footage for the corner of the
intersection.
STAFF FINDINGS Item 12A: A to PCD-2
The property may no longer be suitable for the agricultural uses to
which it has been restricted. City zoning designations are appropriate as the
land has been annexed and in the City since 2001. The PCD zoning designations,
based on the
A Preliminary Development Plan approved by both the Planning Commission
and City Commission, and a Final Development Plan which conforms to the
approved Preliminary Development Plan is required prior to development of the
PCD-2 area. This Development Plan for the commercial component of Mercato would
include restrictions as indicated for a Community Center under 400,000 square
feet (Chapter 6, pages 7 and 8 of Horizon
2020) and the Nodal Plan for this intersection (Nodal Plan for the
Intersection of
ITEM NO. 12B: A TO
RO-1A; 31.12 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF
Z-03-06-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 31.12 acres from A
(Agriculture) District to RO-1A (Residence-Office) District. The property is generally described as being located
north of Highway 40 and east of
Staff
presentation for Item 12B:
The RO-1A zoning district allows for the following types of land use:
Use Group 1. Agricultural – Animal Husbandry
Use Group 2. Agricultural - Field Crops
Use Group 3. Residential Single-family Detached
Use Group 3A. Residential – Duplex
Use Group 4. Residential – Multiple-family. Medium and high-density
multi-family residences
Use Group 6. Residential – Mobile Home Park
Use Group 7. Community Facilities
- Public Utilities
Use Group 8. Temporary Uses
Use Group 9. Professional Offices
The maximum density of RO-1A is 21.78 dwelling units per acre. While RO
zoning may be appropriate next to a proposed commercial center, Horizon 2020 defines 16-21 dwelling
units per acre as High-Density Residential Development. Medium-Density
Residential is identified as 7 to 15 dwelling units per acre. The Northwest
Area Plan also covers this area. It should also be referenced as should the
recommendation in it to transition from greater to lesser density from south to
north.
The request is for 31.12 gross acres of RO-1A Zoning District. The
Nodal Plan for the Intersection of
STAFF FINDINGS Item 12B: A to RO-1A
The property may no longer be suitable for the agricultural uses to
which it has been restricted. City zoning designations are appropriate as the
land has been annexed and in the city since 2001. The requested residential
office/zoning is consistent with the recommendation for office use in the Nodal
Plan, however, the potential residential density of RO-1A is inconsistent with Horizon 2020 and the Northwest Area Plan
recommendations for medium density which is from 7 – 15 dwelling units/acre. A
modification using the Lesser Change Table to 31.12 acres of RO-2
(Residence-Office) District would be consistent with the Nodal Plan for this
area and would convert to RSO (Single Dwelling Office) District in the new
code.
ITEM NO. 12C: A TO
RS-2; 25.82 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF
Z-01-10-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 25.82 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RS-2
(Single-Family Residential) District.
The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40
and east of
Staff presentation for Item 12C:
The RS-2 (Single-family Residential) zoning district allows for the
following types of land use:
Use Group 1. Agricultural – Animal Husbandry
Use Group 2. Agricultural - Field Crops
Use Group 3. Residential Single-family Detached
Use Group 6. Residential – Mobile Home Park
Use Group 7. Community Facilities
- Public Utilities
Use Group 8. Temporary Uses
The maximum density of RS-2 is 6.22 Dwelling Units per
The request is for 25.82 Gross Acres of RS-2 Single Family Residential
Zoning. The Nodal Plan for the Intersection of
STAFF FINDINGS Item 12C: A to RS-2
The property may no longer be suitable for the agricultural uses to
which it has been restricted. City zoning designations are appropriate as the
land has been annexed and in the city since 2001. The requested residential
zoning is consistent with the recommendation for low density residential use in
the Nodal Plan and would convert to RS-7 in the new zoning code.
ITEM NO. 12D: A TO
RM-D; 7.63 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF
Z-01-11-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 7.63 acres from A
(Agriculture) District to RM-D (Duplex Residential) District. The property is generally described as being
located north of Highway 40 and east of
Staff presentation for Item 12D:
The property must be zoned to a City zoning category. In staff’s
opinion, the property may be suitable in the future for a mixture of
Single-Family and Duplex-Residential zoning. The RM-D (Duplex-Residential)
zoning district allows for duplexes. The maximum density of RM-D is 12.44
Dwelling Units per
The request is for 7.63 Gross Acres of RM-D (Duplex Residential)
Zoning. The Nodal Plan for the Intersection of
STAFF FINDINGS Item 12D: A to RM-D
The property may no longer be suitable for the agricultural uses to
which it has been restricted. City zoning designations are appropriate as the
land has been annexed and in the city since 2001. The requested residential
zoning is consistent with the recommendation for medium density residential use
in the Nodal Plan.
ITEM NO. 12E:A TO RM-2; 12.77 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND
EAST OF
Z-01-12-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 12.77 acres from A
(Agriculture) District to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being
located north of Highway 40 and east of
Staff presentation for Item 12E:
The RM (Multiple-Family-Residential) zoning district allows for:
Use Group 1. Agricultural – Animal Husbandry
Use Group 2. Agricultural - Field Crops
Use Group 3. Residential Single-family Detached
Use Group 3A. Residential-Duplex
Use Group 4. Residential - Multi-Family
Use Group 6. Residential – Mobile Home Park
Use Group 7. Community Facilities
- Public Utilities
Use Group 8. Temporary Uses
The maximum density of RM-2 is 21.78 Dwelling Units per
The maximum density of RM-1 is 12.45 Dwelling Units per
The request is for 12.77 Gross Acres of RM-2 (Multiple-Family
Residential) Zoning. The Nodal Plan for the Intersection of
STAFF FINDINGS Item 12E: A to RM-2
The property may no longer be suitable for the agricultural uses to
which it has been restricted. City zoning designations are appropriate as the
land has been annexed and in the City since 2001. The requested residential
zoning is not consistent with the Nodal Plan for residential recommendations
for either low density residential or for medium density residential (7 – 15
dwelling units/acre) residential uses for this area. RM-1 which has a maximum
density of 12.45 Dwelling Units per
ITEM NO. 12F: REVISED
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MERCATO; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF
PP-01-02-06: Revised Preliminary Plat for Mercato. This proposed residential and commercial
development contains approximately 122.65 acres. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of
JANE ELDREDGE: Representing
Mercato project. The commercial acreage
has been reduced by 20 percent by request of Commissioner Haase. Staff is recommending approval of the
commercial. There are no acres in the
nodal plan, northwest area plan, or in the transportation 2025 plan….these are
all blob plans. They are read in
conjunction with the narrative. The only
time acre comes up in the nodal plan is when it says the whole nodal plan is
640 acres. We find acres in chapter
6-commercial chapter of the Horizon 2020-the only time acreage is mentioned
under the criteria for community commercial center is setting a minimum number
of acres, which is 20 acres for commercial development. There is no maximum for acres. We urge you to adopt staff’s recommendation
with the exception of the 12 month. That
was brand new, and they had just heard it for the first time on Thursday. We are bringing forward tonight a preliminary
plat. This zoning request will not be
effective until you see a preliminary development plan. The preliminary development plan cannot be
meaningfully prepared until we talk to the tenants about what they would
need. These owners have every incentive
to proceed with as rapidly as possible; holding this much land in an
unproductive state is not in their self-interest. We ask to eliminate condition number 2, and
we have agreed to all the other conditions.
You have told us that there are 184 thousand square feet for commercial
use and we have accepted that. There
will be no other commercial retail zoning there until this planning commission
says that should happen. We agree with
the recommendations of staff for 12C and 12D.
The last two are more problematic and they refer to the two suggestions
with the lesser change table. It refers
to RM-2 area and RO-1 area. The other
plans are active, so these are all generalized plans, and your job is to
identify the guiding principles in all three of these plans that deal with this
corner. The definition for medium
density residential in our existing code is RM-2, which is what we asked
for. This can be found in 2603. 2606
defines the RO zoning and RO-1A defined as medium density. The residential units per acre in RO-1A and
RM-2 are the same, 21 units per acre.
That density is appropriate in the Northgate project to the south. It’s all medium density and that is what the
nodal plan calls for and it is defined in our existing code. The reason not to go to an RO-1 or RO-2 here,
is because the northwest area plan requires uses to be more intense along
COMMISSIONER HAASE: Is there a time frame that the applicant would be
comfortable with?
JANE ELDREDGE: There is not one I can give at this point, because
without a zoning designation there as not been any discussion between
applicants and perspective tenants. It
is not required under current code and it has not been used in any other
situations, and I do not believe that it needs to be done here.
COMMISSIONER HAASE: Would 3 or 4 years be reasonable? While you confer, I have another question to
resolve notions that I heard. Conversion
of RO-1A, I thought I heard staff say that under new code, that would convert
to a zoning category that would allow for commercial development, and I know I
heard Jane say that is not the case. Is
that a problem or not?
STAFF PATTERSON: Staff
recommendation was for O1 office district under the current code, which
converts new code to CO office commercial.
COMMISSIONER HAASE: Does RO-1A under the new code convert to
something that permits retail commercial?
MS. STAGSDILL: No, our previous
recommendation was to use the lesser change to go to 01, O1 would become CO
which would allow for commercial uses, which is why we have changed our
recommendation to RO-2 which converts to RSO.
COMMISSIONER HAASE: What’s the
problem with RO-1A?
MS. STAGSDILL: Our concern was
the density.
COMMISSIONER KREBS: Could staff
clarify the density on each of the different RO districts that we have
discussed and what is allowed in them in addition to residential. I have that RO-1A allows for 21 dwelling
units per acre, and RO-2 allows for 12 dwelling units per acre. Is that correct?
STAFF PATTERSON: RO-1 allows for 43 dwelling units per acre would be
maximum. Under RO-1A it allows for 21
dwelling units per acre. Under RO-1B it
allows for 12 dwelling units per acre.
COMMISSIONER KREBS: Does RO-1A
allow for commercial development?
JANE ELDREDGE: Answer Commissioner Haase’s question, we could agree to
a five year outside maximum.
COMMISSIONER HAASE: Did staff
compute a floor area ratio to see how this acreage benchmarks against industry
standards for the actual square footage as it relates to acreage?
STAFF PATTERSON: No we did not,
we put the CC 400 thousand square foot restrictions upon the zoning for the
commercial PCD two portions and went down and identified what those
restrictions would be so that they would pertain to the commercial component.
COMMISSIONER HAASE: There are
industry standards as how big a square footage can be accommodated by a given
acreage in a typical retail environment…do we have an of that information?
JANE ELDREDGE: This request is
not just for retail, but a possibility for a number of other uses.
COMMISSIONER HARRIS: How does
the recommendation of staff compare to the nodal plan in the number of
residential units you are proposing?
STAFF PATTERSON: There is a
summary of the breakout of the different zoning districts in the preliminary
plat staff report, on 12F on the second page of the report.
COMMISSIONER KREBS: Can you give
us what the dwelling units per acre are in RS-2, as low density.
STAFF PATTERSON: The dwelling
units for low density is 6 dwelling units or less per acre.
COMMISSIONER KREBS: Is that what
RS-2 is?
STAFF PATTERSON: RS-2 is around
6 dwelling units per acre?
MS. STAGSDILL: Most RS-2
developments net 3-4 dwelling units when you take away for the right of
way.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER ERMELING: If 5
years is your maximum expectation for how long you need before you can move on
to the next part of development…what is you minimum?
JANE ELDREDGE: The best estimate
would be 4 years.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: If we
required having a zoning for the plan unit development, and not get the zoning
itself until we saw the plan then at that point we could write some conditions
into the zoning and not just into the plan.
Those conditions could include building heights, building design elements. What else could we write into the zoning if
we had the plan at the same time we had the plan?
MS. STOGSDILL: In the past
rezoning ordinance of PCD have listed specific uses that are permitted, the use
group tables with certain uses struck out.
That’s been typical.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: If we
don’t have the plan when we are doing the zoning, then we don’t have a list of
conditions to write in, unless we do some planning ourselves. The result is that if we adapt a plan unit
zone without seeing the plan, then when the plan comes in we approve it, but it
often goes through changes. So it
wouldn’t have the same kind of permanency as it does putting it into the
zoning. Is that true statement?
MS. STOGSDILL: Most of the time
when someone is proposing a specific change, then they require additional
public hearing to revise the preliminary developing plan. The one piece you don’t have is the ability
for neighbors to protest.
COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: Question
for the sewer expert….half of the project is phase one and phase two is the
rest, and how far out is phase two?
PHIL STRBLE: There are no phase
lines. City Commission on Tuesday night
removed all phase lines. We are going to
increase capacity of that pump station to its maximum ability, which would
serve this development, and more today once it’s done.
No public comment
TIM HERNDON: There are a couple
of conditions that need to be addressed. There are a couple of changes to the
preliminary plat that we want to make.
Condition 3A reads: no building
permits will be issued until the completion of either
STAFF PATTERSON: Item number
3A…currently
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: Condition number 2 is basically protecting the
applicant against fire, and you are aware of this and despite that you would
still like it to be removed?
TIM HERNDON: Yes we would. Building inspection is not going to issue the
permitting until sufficient conditions exist that generally resemble what Mr.
Patterson described. It is also quite
frequent that certain construction evolution takes place while roadways are
being constructed around them. A lot of
roadways are unfinished until a significant build out occurs to prevent heavy
equipment damaging a brand new street.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: What was
staff’s answer on the second one?
STAFF PATTERSON: It is ok to
strike Item number 3C.
MS. STOGSDILL: We have struggled
with these building permits and occupancy permit issues, but it would be
consistent with what the City Commission did for Monterey Bluffs. Originally they were restricted to building
permits until
Motion to extend the meeting until 10:30 by Commissioner Ermeling. Seconded by Harris (no objections).
MS. STOGSDILL: Staff is in a
little bit of a dilemma because we made those recommendation for density based
on Horizon 2020 defines medium density as 7-15 dwelling units per acre and high
density and 16-21, and our existing code shows that 21 dwelling units per acre
is medium because of what our code allows, so we made our recommendation as to
what Horizon 2020 says. Northgate or
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: There is
concern with multi family right next to a single family and there is no
buffering so you can end up with tall building right next to short buildings
and you might have guys looking in to the small building windows from the tall
buildings. We don’t have anything in our
current code to control that. The new
code has stronger language with buffering that out. If we are thinking in terms of the current
code there is a good argument why we shouldn’t be juxtaposing those two
zones. Could staff comment on that
problem?
MS. STOGSDILL: There is a
disconnect. The new code does set in
place buffer yards, which will provide more transition and development
standards, which talk about balcony placement when you are adjacent to a single
family. Time will only tell if those are
adequate.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: We should
consider the current code when making our decision?
MS. STOGSDILL: No rush to
develop the RM-2 or RO-1A property when there has been discussion that it might
be 5 years out before commercial property is ready to be submitted.
COMMISSIONER ERMELING: There is
concern about not being able to utilize new standards of the development code
that might help us in this particular development and certainly in the design
codes that could come forward in our commercial area.
COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: They will
be competing with the Diamondhead property of the south. Maybe competition of design will help both
projects.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: If we pass
a PCD zoning now before the new code is in effect, what rules will actually
apply to the plan when it comes in. The
current rules or the new rules?
MS. STOGSDILL: This project is
in transition so the applicant can elect to submit under the current
regulations or the new regulations.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: I don’t think I can vote for a PCD without a plan
that goes with it.
COMMISSIONER KREBS: If they have
that option of applying old rules or new rules can we put a stipulations saying
that they have to abide by commercial design standards?
MS. STOGSDILL: You could make that recommendation.
COMMISSIONER
MS. STOGSDILL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ERMELING: Should it
be more of a PRD? If it is under the old
code systems, there is room for design consideration…does anyone have feelings
about that?
COMMISSIONER ERMELING: In the
development of the south side of 6th, we asked them to abide by the proposed
commercial design standards…that would be appropriate in this setting also?
MS. STOGSDILL: You could make that recommendation to the City
Commission that they would make that part of the PCD zoning.
COMMISSIONER KREBS: Lisa asked
about the number of units per acre, if you use the nodal plans suggestion of
number of acres, half would be under residential which would be about 60 acres
and the majority of that should be low density and the rest should be medium
density. 60 acres in the low density
alone would be around 180-240. If a
portion of that would be medium density it would up it some. The current proposal is about 45 acres in
residential with the total of 255 units in that 45 acres.
COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: Is that
jiving with what you were thinking.
TIM HERNDON: I just heard a
calculation of the bear minimum lowest density development we could do outside
of a rural subdivision. With the mix of
housing types, 3-4 acres is what you get, but the maximum density that is
allowed by Horizon 2020 is 6 dwelling units per acre and a developer will see
to it that 6 units will be used and not the bear minimum of 3-4. I would suggest that you use the 6 units in
you calculating then the 3-4 units.
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: There are
two main areas we need to look at, the staff recommendation of changing from
RO-1A to RO-2 and keeping the acres the same, and going from RM-2 to RM-. We also need to look at the three changes
that are made on the preliminary plat.
COMMISSIONER KREBS: Right now we
are looking at 75 acres being put into use as residential and commercial, and
we don’t know what the PCD would allow for.
We don’t have a system that works to see the zoning before we see
plans.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER KREBS: What are the
plans for the remaining 40 acres.
JANE ELDREDGE: The nodal plan is
640 acres which means 160 in the north east corner, so if you are looking at it
in the gross allocations of acreages, so half of it would be used for
commercial which would be 80 not 60. The
request is within the desired nodal plan.
We want to bring you the development plan, and no zoning is done until
you and the City Commission have approved a preliminary development plan.
COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: The
Northgate is approximately 200 thousand square feet and the one above it is 25
percent bigger, they both have design issues with slope so it’s not a huge
number like you may think it is.
(directed to Commissioner Krebs)
Motion by Commissioner Eichhorn to approve item 12A and change the
second condition to 60 months. Seconded
by Lawson.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: In the new
code there is a limit to how soon you bring in the plan?
MS. STOGSDILL: You bring the
plan in with the zoning.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: 60 months
is way too long. If they need to they
can come in and get an extension.
Motion to amend the 60 months to 18 month by Commissioner Burress. Seconded by Krebs.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: Why is the
shorter time needed? (directed to Commissioner Burress)
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Because
conditions change, and if in 5 years they come in here and they haven’t done
anything, and the world is different and we wish we didn’t give them a PCD at
all…we are stuck with that decision. If
we are giving a PCD we assume that things are going to move forward.
(Vote on motion by Burress: 2-8 all against except Burress and Krebs)
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Did staff
suggest which law this would go under?
MS. STOGSDILL: You could
recommend this to the City Commission.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: In a PCD
you can condition in a numerous number of ways and that would be one that you
could condition, you could write in this PCD a condition that will agree with
commercial design standards.
MS. STOGSDILL: You could do
that, but you don’t have a plan in front of you.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: You could
write it into the zoning.
MS. STOGSDILL: You could do
that, but I would recommend that be a separate recommendation though.
(Vote on original motion: 9-1 those against Burress)
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: Next item
is Item 12B
COMMISSIONER ERMELING: Is use
group number 6 an appropriate use if RO-1A?
I do not understand this group number.
JANE ELDREDGE: I would not
appose that being struck.
Motion to approve Item 12B by Commissioner Eichhorn. Seconded by Erickson.
COMMISSIONER HAASE: We need to
decide if we want high density or a lower density, and I tend to go towards
higher density. Supports RO-1A, so I am
going to vote against the motion.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: How would
you respond to the argument that we do need higher density but we don’t need it
on the far side of the road that’s going to have too much traffic on it?
COMMISSIONER HAASE: We will need
to deal with residential traffic generation in the northwest area much better
than we have.
COMMISSIONER ERMELING: I support
having high density, but I am not sure that we have the mechanisms in place to
make that is a coordinated process.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: What is
staff’s comment on what Commissioner Haase’s recommendation?
MS. STOGSDILL: Horizon 2020 says
that you have to have a higher density along your major roadways.
Motion to amend the motion on the floor to change RO-2 to RO-1A. Seconded by
(Vote on original motion 8-2 those against Ermeling and Erickson)
Motion to approve Item 12C by Commissioner Eichhorn. Seconded by Ermeling. (Vote 10-0)
Motion to approve Item 12D by Commissioner Eichhorn. Seconded by Ermeling. (Vote 10-0)
Motion to approve Item 12E by Commissioner Eichhorn. Seconded by Ermeling.
COMMISSIONER HAASE: We have been
advised that we should solicit the approval of the applicant, so I would ask to
get a reading form the applicant.
JANE ELDREDGE: We do not support
it.
COMMISSIONER HAASE: I think that
is a legal problem for us. We should
move forward with RM-2 or initiate a rezoning on our own.
Motion to amend RM-1 back to RM-2 by Commissioner Lawson. Seconded by
(Vote for original motion 7-3 those against Erickson, Ermeling, Harris)
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: Final item is Item 12F
Motion to approve 12F with the following conditions: Change item 3A as
to what the applicant stated they wanted to be approved, remove 3C, and remove
item 6. Seconded by Ermeling.
COMMISSIONER HAASE: To be
consistent with the conditions we placed on Northgate, we should add an 8th
conditions that says, phasing and use restrictions of the retail commercial
elements of the development will be governed by conclusions drawn from a data
set developed within the city of Lawrence planning department. I offer that as a motion to amend the
conditions for approval. Seconded by
Krebs.
COMMISSIONER LAWSON: What is this amendment meant to do? (directed to
Haase)
COMMISSIONER HAASE: This is
intended to address the issue of retail impact analysis and I try to craft
language that didn’t give any definite form of what that is going to be. The planning commission should be involved in
establishing criteria for determining phasing and retail impact of a proposed
development, and I am proposing that we attach that as we did to Northgate to
this preliminary plat.
JANE ELDEREDGE: I have the
minutes from the Northgate issue, and the condition that you are wanted to put
here was actually placed on the preliminary developing plan and not on the
preliminary plat.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSSIONER HAASE: I would
yield to those arguments, that when the preliminary developing plan comes
forward that this condition be considered, and by that time we should have
better definition of what the mechanism is going to be.
COMMISSIONER KREBS: Extract my second
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: We have the original motion out on the floor now.
COMMISSIONER ERMELING: We advised the Northgate group that they had to
follow the guidelines of the commercial standards as they stand in draft form,
that also needs to be taken up.
(Vote on original motion 10-0)
Motion to make a recommendation that the developing plan for the PCP be
required to follow the proposed commercial design guidelines. Seconded by Ermeling. (Vote 8-2 those against Lawson and
Meeting recesses until April 19th, 2006
Meeting reconvenes April 19th, 2006 at 6:35p.m.
No communications
No exparte or abstentions
Swearing in of the speakers by Ms. Stogsdill
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
PC
minutes 04/19/06
ITEM NO. 13: M-2
TO C-4; .26 ACRES;
Z-02-03-06: A request to rezone a tract of land
approximately .26 acres from M-2 to C-4.
The property is generally described as being located east of
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms.
Leininger presented. This is a proposed
rezoning from M-2 to C-4 at
-
The C-4 District would be zoning to the existing
use.
-
The property has been used as various
commercial/light industrial uses for over 25 yrs.
-
The rezoning is consistent with the Horizon 2020
policy regarding parks, recreation and open spaces as a transitional use.
-
Downzoning would reduce the possibility of
redevelopment as a medium-intensity industrial use.
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning.
PUBLIC
HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
Lawson: Do we have any insight of
how the owner feels about this?
Leininger: I have talked to the
owner and to the people that rent the building and as long as they are allowed
to continue the existing use, they are in favor of the rezoning.
ACTION
TAKEN
Motioned by Eichorn, seconded by Harris to recommend approval.
Motion carried
unanimously, 10-0
PC
minutes 04/19/06
ITEM NO. 14: M-2
TO RS-2; .34 ACRES;
Z-02-04-06: A request to rezone a tract of land
approximately .34 acres from M-2 to RS-2.
The property is generally described as being located along
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms.
Leininger presented. This is a proposed
rezoning from M-2 to RS-2 at
•
RS-2 District would allow the existing use.
•
The rezoning would alleviate a non-conforming use.
•
Horizon 2020
identifies the properties as single-family residential and is consistent with
several policies regarding low-density residential uses.
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning.
PUBLIC
HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
ACTION
TAKEN
Motioned by Eichorn, seconded by Harris to recommend approval.
Motion carried
unanimously, 10-0
PC minutes
04/19/06
ITEM NO. 15 : ADOPTION
OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR
TA-01-02-06: Pursuant to the provisions of
K.S.A. Chapter 12, Article 7, consider making a recommendation on the adoption
of “Subdivision Regulations for
Public Comments on Item 15:
RICH MORANTZ: I live outside of
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: If the
large subdivision were eliminated from the county proposal, what would your
thoughts be of that?
RICH MORANTZ: There are some
things in there that I like, with the number of amendments given by
Commissioner Haase in an early meeting I would be able to accept some
things. There are a number of things
that I object to, but I do not have those with me right now.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: The motive of the
BETTY LICHTWARDT: I am
representing the League of Women Voters.
For three years from 1996 to 1999 the League studied rural development,
we had already come to the conclusion that the rural development should be
preserved and not utilized as a suburban development area. We had to find a justification for it, and
this is why we undertook our study. We
leaned a lot about farming in
COMMISSIONER HARRIS: What is the
video tape about?
BETTY LICHTWARDT: It’s about the
relationship between preserving farmland and open space in the county rather
than allowing sprawling suburban development and how it impacts the city. It’s based on nation wide research.
SCOTT STOCKWELL: I had attended
the BOCC meetings last fall and at the time there was a specific provision that
they were contemplating with respect to this 40-acre area that could be
split. It indicated whether you met the
40-acre requirement and how it was measured.
When I bought my land I thought I had 40 acres, but really I only had
36.2 acres. This is because the road
that goes by my property is level and the property slopes off and the right-of-way
has to get wider to accommodate the slope of the ditch. If you are splitting 40 acres into smaller
parcels there has to be interior access so there is going to be road right-of-way
that will absorb some of that acreage. So I would ask that you eliminate that
requirement.
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: What
exactly are you asking to be changed?
LINDA FINGER: Part of the
recommendation is how you calculate acreage for the purpose of if you meet the
minimum size. The section that addresses
that it allows you to use percentage of a road frontage that you have adjacent
to you. The percentage is too low if you
were adjacent to two roads, so what staff is recommending is to get rid of that
percentage and you simply be allowed to use your portion of the road frontage
to count towards your total acreage.
That hasn’t been changed yet, but it is in the staff
recommendations.
MELINDA HENDERSON: Not happy
with what the
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: We will
have two other meetings that will present further information on this
item.
COMMISSIONER ERMELING: I think
we should have the further meetings before we have our discussion on this
item.
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: I think
that items 16-18 may be discussed together and that maybe we should wait and
talk about them all together with item 15.
COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: I believe
that we could move item 17 on.
Motion by Commissioner Haase to table item 15 until our main meeting
and establish April 18th as the last day for public comment. Seconded by Krebs.
(Vote 10-0)
COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Has there
been a study session for the County and the City Commissions about the transferable
development rights?
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: No.
COMMISSIONER HARRIS: I would
like to investigate more into having one.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Thinks
that studying transferable developing rights will take way too long to get into
place. We need to start small and move
to a more encompassing program.
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN: Agrees
that the complexity of this idea is too big and will take too much time.
COMMISSIONER LAWSON: Aware of a
reference to
COMMISSIONER HAASE: TDR showed
up in my recommendation because Commissioner Jones opened that door and
suggested there are some unsolved problems within the county proposed
regulations as well as the RPC draft and suggested to create incentives for the
conservation of valuable sites and perhaps TDR is something that we should be
considering. There should be some
incentive based method for conserving ground.
There was a real reluctance to simply identify sensitive sites. It seemed to me that TDR is an opportunity to
create financial incentive to make applications to the county with their site
and doubling their opportunity to sell development rights. This concept deserves a lot of discussion.
PC
minutes 04/19/06
ITEM NO. 16: AMENDMENTS
TO ARTICLES 6, 7, AND 18 IN THE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED
TERRITORY OF
TA-01-03-06: Consider
amendments to Articles 6, 7, and 18 in the
“Zoning Regulations for the Unincorporated Territory of Douglas County,
Kansas,” said amendments: revise the ‘A’ Agricultural District [Article 6] to
allow development of single-family dwellings in conformance with revisions to
platting and development requirements in the jointly adopted Lawrence/Douglas
County Subdivision Regulations; revise the ‘A-1” Suburban Home Residential
District [Article 7] to conform to minimum frontage and entrance spacing
requirements for roads in Douglas County, when adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners; and, revise the Height, Area and Bulk Requirements Table,
[Article 18] to conform to minimum frontage and entrance spacing requirements
for roads in Douglas County, when adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners. Initiated for public
hearing by the Board of County Commissioners on January 25, 2006. This
item was deferred from the March Planning Commission meeting.
Public comment:
BETTY LICHTWARDT: This is part of the same letter from the
League of Women Voters and we are very concerned because the agriculture
district has been suggested to be modified to platted subdivisions and the
League is very opposed to that. It would
mean that there is no way that you could prevent a platted subdivision from
being located anyplace in the county. If
you confine the platted subdivision as in the current ordinance regulations at
least the zoning has to take place, which allows for public hearing. When it is allowed only in the agriculture
district that process is not available.
Even though the minimum acreage is 80 acres if you look at the map we sent
to you, you can see that 80-acre parcels exist all over the county, so there is
absolutely no predictability where those platted subdivisions could be
located. This is a farmer’s worst
nightmare and they have described many of their problems to us about constant
traded suburban people in agriculture areas.
COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: Who is selling the land to put these
subdivisions on if it isn’t the farmers?
BETTY LICHTWARDT: The farmers would be selling them and there
are always farmers who want to sell their farm, but it has an impact on the
other farmers.
Motion to table Item 16 until May by
Commissioner Lawson. Seconded by
Harris.
(Vote 10-0)
PC
minutes 04/19/06
ITEM NO. 17: REVISIONS TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN THE
URBAN GROWTH AREA (UGA) OF
TA-12-05-03: Consider
revisions recommended to the floodplain management requirements for residential
development within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) of
No public comment
Motion to approve Item 17 by Commissioner
Eichhorn. Seconded by
(Vote 10-0)
PC
minutes 04/19/06
ITEM NO. 18: AMENDMENTS
TO CHAPTERS 4 AND 5 TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGULATIONS FOR
THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF
CPA-2006-01: Hold a public hearing on proposed amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan, Horizon 2020, Chapters 4 & 5. The amendments are: to ‘Chapter Four – Growth
Management’ and ‘Chapter 5 –
Residential’, which pertain to the development criteria for rural residential development
in the Unincorporated Area of Douglas County. Associates with text changes in
these two chapters are two maps, Map 4-1 and Map 4-2 which depict the criteria
that will be used in the evaluation of rural development within the Lawrence
UGA, Service Areas 2 through 4, and within the remainder of the Unincorporated
Area of Douglas County. There are also
changes to the road classifications to the Major Thoroughfare Maps in Chapter 8
[Maps 8-1 and 8-2]. Initiated for public
hearing by the Board of County Commissioners on January 25, 2006. This
item was deferred from the March Planning Commission meeting.
Public Comment:
BETTY LICHTWARDTS: The
comprehension plan revisions seem to not be coordinated with the other
recommendations. Not having a specific
location where a platted subdivision would be required to be placed and if they
are allowed in the rural area is the main concern we have. The description of the language in Horizon
2020 places them contiguous to existing platted subdivisions and this was
originally placed in the plan to concentrate them adjacent to areas that already
had them so they wouldn’t be spread all over the county. To modify that to say that they would be
located where there are groups of platted or unplatted development; to us would
be impossible to meet. If you have
followed how these decisions have been made in the urban growth area there
seems to not be a policy to where they will be locate there. If you transfer this policy to the county
then you will have the justification in the plan to locate them anywhere. The maps from the League’s letter did not
include ranchettes, which would double the number of existing isolated
dwellings. There would be no place in
the county where a platted subdivision would not be permitted.
Motion to table Item 18 until April 28th by Commissioner Harris. Seconded by Ermeling. (Vote 10-0)
PC minutes 04/19/06
ITEM NO. 19: ADOPTION
OF REVISIONS TO DEVELOPMENT CODE, NOVEMBER 11, 2005 EDITION
TA-03-02-06: Pursuant to the provisions of
K.S.A. Chapter 12, Article 7, consider revisions to the proposed “Development
Code, November 11, 2005 Edition,” enacting a new Chapter 20 of the Code of the
City of Lawrence, Kansas, establishing comprehensive zoning regulations and
other land use regulations. The
“Development Code, November 11, 2005 Edition” is a general and complete
revision of the City’s existing zoning regulations and affects all property
within the corporate limits of the City of Lawrence, Kansas. The “Development Code, November 11, 2005
Edition” and proposed revisions are incorporated by reference as if fully set
forth in this notice. Copies of the “Development Code, November 11, 2005
Edition” and proposed revisions are available for review at the Office of the
Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Department, City Hall, 6 E. 6th
Street, Lawrence, Kansas. The “Development
Code, November 11, 2005 Edition” and proposed revisions are also available at www.lawrenceplanning.org.
ITEM NO. 19A: TA-03-02A-06: Text
amendments to various sections of Chapter 20 to clarify or clean up
text.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Stogsdill introduced all of the proposed
amendments.
Public comment:
BETTY LICHTWARDT: I am
representing the League of Women Voters, and the first one that we were
concerned with was the word “predominantly” to the term detached
dwellings. We believe that because of
the other language in it, that this word is unnecessary because other uses can
go into the other RS districts. This is
pertaining to Item 19A, page 2-2, section 20-202 (a)(l). The second modification that we are asking
for is Item 19E, text amendments to Article 7, planned developments, page 7-2,
section 20-701 (f)(l)(ii). We are asking
that you include “building type” into the language that is already
proposed. The basic problem of not
having any kind of language that deals with the scale of the adjoining RS
district is the fact that the regulations of the RS district could be
duplicated in the RM district to create the three story apartments that are
already a problem for RS districts, so the language doesn’t cure the problem.
You need to have some kind of language that would reduce the scale of an RS
district. On page 13-24, 20-1304
(e)(2)(iv) we are asking that you strike out “non” for residential building
type, because building type is a residential building. What you really need is a broader ability to
deal with both residential and non-residential buildings. We have asked that you change the wording to
“changes a residential building type or a non-residential structure by more
than 10 percent in size”. This would
allow you to deal with square footage in retail usage, which based on the
language wouldn’t allow you to do that in a planned development. The others you will have to refer to the
letter that was sent to you by the League of Women Voters.
COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Your
question about scale of a building, in that section it talked about
height. Is that a different issue for
you?
BETTY LICHTWARDT: No, it doesn’t
appear to be a problem because a residential district allows a building to be
35 feet in height, so when you have an allowance of a 35- foot building, which
can be very much taller based on the basement.
This is one reason why you get these extremely tall buildings adjacent to
small residential buildings.
MS. STOGSDILL: The language that
we had proposed in section 202 had been a response to earlier comments from the
League because detached dwellings were not specifically identified and we did
suggest to include “predominantly” because if you don’t the purpose reads that
the RS district accommodates single detached dwelling units on individual lots
and there would be other things allowed by special use permit, but for someone
only reading the purpose statement they would not know that if they didn’t go
to the use table. Staff feels that you
are providing more information by adding “predominantly”.
COMMISSIONER KREBS: What about
the fact that it states that it is the primary purpose, which implies that
there is a secondary purpose as well. So
it seems that primary would duplicate the intent of predominantly.
MS. STOGSDILL: That would be
another argument. I am just concerned
that if someone reads it they may think that there can only be detached
dwellings in this district and then they come unglued when something else is
proposed in their neighborhood.
In section 701 the League’s letter suggests a
couple of changes, and the first one suggests that you would incorporate the
existing language in our existing zoning ordinance regarding the restriction of
uses and building types. This generally
just puts developers on notice that the city does have the ability through the PUD
section to restrict uses and building types.
This suggestion is reasonable to add to the code. The second suggestion from the League is to
add the language “building type” to 701(j)(l) that is the section where we were
talking about the development within 60 feet of the peripheral boundary of the
planned district shall be limited to the following. The original language said “use, heights,
setback and minimum lots sizes permitted in the zoning district immediately
adjoining the proposed PD. The
discussion at our midmonth meeting was that “use” would indicate that if you
were adjacent to single family that within the first 60 feet of a planned
development you would need to have single family and the intent had been that
you would need to have residential, which is why we added “use category”
instead of just “use” and in our opinion that covers everything we need to
say. The other one was in Article 13,
which is related to planned development.
It was the section that described the major changes in a planned
developments in terms of what would need to come back through the review
process and giving us that criteria. At
our midmonth, we discussed that building type specifically refers to
residential structures, and that is why we added non-residential. The change that is suggested by the League is
a good addition that gives us another criterion. Although I do think that the non-residential
uses are covered in subsection C where it talks about not increasing the floor
area for proposed non-residential uses by more than 10 percent, but I don’t
think there is harm in duplicating it.
The last League suggestion was an additional definition for “connector
street” and putting that in the terminology section. I think that might be more reasonable to have
in the subdivision regulations.
LINDA FINGER: I believe that is
where all your other definitions of streets are and as I recall that is one of
the staff’s recommendations to add a definition of connector so it doesn’t get
confused with major and minor collectors.
COMMISSIONER HARRIS: On page 602(e)6(vii),
you should add “courts” after “tennis”.
COMMISSION ACTION
Motion to approve Item 19A with addition of Commissioner Harris’
amendment, as well as the change to 1304E24H: the change in language of the
residential building type or a non-residential structure. Seconded by Harris.
COMMISSIONER BURRESS: What is
staff’s recommendation of 20-701?
MS. STOGSDILL: That is Item 19E,
so I will tell you our opinion when we get to that item.
COMMISSIONER KREBS: Withdraw the
1304 aspect of my motion because it is found in Item 19H. So my motion is to accept item 19A.
Motion carried unanimously (10-0).
|
Pg No. |
Section
No. 20- |
Recommended
Text Change |
|
Article 1. Introductory Provisions |
||
|
1-2 |
107(b)(1) |
Modify reference to specific definition: Words used in the Development Code have the
standard dictionary definition |
|
1-7 |
110(e) |
Modify table to indicate C-4 & C-5
converts to CS and indicate previous map designation for CC should be NONE
(New) |
|
Article 2. Base Districts |
||
|
2-1 |
201(a) |
Base Districts The Zoning Districts
presented in this chapter are referred to as “Base Districts” because they
establish the basic zoning regulations that apply to all properties. classified in, or shown on, the
Official Zoning District Map as in that Zoning District. All land in the City has a Base District classification.
Base District regulations control the types of uses allowed and the way in
which uses and Buildings may be developed on a site. The Base District
regulations are the default regulations—they always control unless expressly
overridden by or pursuant to any applicable Overlay Zoning District regulations. |
|
2-1 |
201(b) |
Include RM12D in table of districts
established |
|
2-2 |
202(a)(1) |
Clarify purpose: The primary purpose of the RS Districts is
to accommodate predominantly single
detached Dwelling Units on
individual Lots. |
|
2-3 |
203(a) |
Remove second ‘ |
|
2-4 & 2-5 |
204(a) |
Renumber ii, iii, iv. Insert text at end of (3): Only
one principal building per lot is permitted in this district. |
|
2-5 |
204(f) |
Renumber 2, 3, 4, 5 modify (2) Landscaping See Article 10 |
|
2-9 |
207(a) |
Add and
pursuant to adopted access management standards. |
|
2-10 |
208(a) |
Move 209(e) to end of Purpose: Developments
in CN2 Districts are intended for |
|
2-11 |
208(e) |
Substitute text from 207(e): Development
in the CN2 District may take Access to local, Collector or Arterial Streets
and to public Alleys (if they abut the property being developed). |
|
2-14 |
211(d)(1) |
Revise first sentence:
|
|
2-17 |
213(b) & (d)(1) |
Delete |
|
2-24 |
219(f) |
Modify to clarify when plan is required: Subject to the standards of this Article,
the institution responsible for the property within the H District shall |
|
2-26 |
222(b)(1) |
Delete |
|
| ||