PLANNING COMMISSION  MEETING

June 26 & 28, 2006

Meeting Minutes

________________________________________________________________________

June 26, 2006 – 7:05 p.m.

Commissioners present:  Burress, Haase, Jennings, Erickson, Krebs, Harris, Lawson, Eichhorn and new Commissioner Finkeldei

Staff present:  Stogsdill, Day, A. Miller, Leininger and Pool

________________________________________________________________________

 

COMMUNICATIONS

Item 1 - Final Plat for Stevens Addition No. 2

  • Letter of opposition signed by multiple area residents
  • Letter of opposition from Richard Hewitt & Anna Anderson

 

Item 2B – Final Plat for LMH Addition

  • Letter of opposition from the League of Women Voters

 

Item 3 – CUP for Midnight Farm     

  • Information packet from CLO sent to area residents
  • Letter of opposition signed by several area residents
  • Individual letters of opposition from:
    • Suzanne Ashley
    • Thomas & Marian Swain
    • Carole Peters
    • Linda Wright

 

Item 4 – Hierarchy of Plans

  • List of suggested changes proposed by the League of Women Voters

 

Item 5 – Text Amendment to Chapter 20 of Development Code

  • Staff memo recommending initiation of text amendments for future public hearing in July 2006

 

Misc. Item No. 2 – Revisions to PC By-Laws

  • Staff memo outlining suggested revisions

 

Items 11A & 11B – Rezonings and PDP for Prairie Wind Homes

  • Letter of opposition signed by multiple area residents
  • Letter from League of Women Voters requesting covenants conforming to Kansas state statute

 

Other Miscellaneous

  • Letter from Richard Hemphill responding to Burroughs Communications Trust Letter (Final Plat for 1900 Learnard)
  • Email from Comm. Harris requesting changes to the April & May 2006 minutes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MINUTES

Motioned by Harris, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the minutes of the April 17 & 19, 2006 meeting as revised per Study Session discussion.

 

          Motion carried 8-0-1, with Finkeldei abstaining because he was not on the Commission at that time.

Motioned by Harris, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the minutes of the May 22 & 24, 2006 meeting as revised per Study Session discussion.

 

          Motion carried 8-0-1, with Finkeldei abstaining because he was not on the Commission at that time.

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS

CPC: The committee is continuing its work on establishing neighborhood plans

 

T2030: The committee received information on the eastern bypass and the SLT, discussing how these elements related to the MPO’s long-range transportation goals.  They also directed Staff to:

·         Develop a schedule for public outreach sessions to comply with federal regulations on public input;

·         Gather information on the implications for our region of the inter-modal freight depots beginning operation in Kansas City;

·         Set up meetings with representatives from adjacent counties to discuss the arterial road systems

 

RZO: The Committee met multiple times in the last month to discuss what is being referred to as the “bubble flow chart”.  They met with the County Commission to hear opinions and suggestions from that governing body.  The committee intended to meet twice more to finalize their work.

 

CDC: The committee discussed the SmartCode tables and an RFP for hiring a consultant.

 

PCMM: The Commission met with the City Commission to discuss the text amendment for retail market studies and standards for implementation, which were included on tonight’s regular agenda. 

 

 

EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST

·         Lawson said he received a phone call from a party involved in Item 3.  They discussed format and protocol, and Lawson advised the caller to submit concerns to Staff in writing.

·         Finkeldei said he would recuse himself from Item 3.

·         There were no deferral requests to consider.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2006-2007

Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Harris to nominate Krebs as the 2006-2007 Chair.  There were no other nominations.

          Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

 

Motioned by Harris, seconded by Lawson to nominate Eichhorn as the 2006-2007 Vice-Chair.  There were no other nominations.

          Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

 

 

 

 

CONSENT AGENDA

Item 1 was pulled from the Consent Agenda.

 

 

 

Swearing in of witnesses.

 

PC Minutes 6/26/06

ITEM NO. 1:              FINAL PLAT FOR STEVENS ADDITION 2ND PLAT; NORTHWEST CORNER N 800 ROAD AND E 1500 ROAD (SLD)

 

PF-05-12-06: Final Plat for Stevens Addition 2nd Plat, a replat of Quantrill Acres Subdivision Welcome Park.  This proposed residential lot contains approximately 5.202 acres.  The property is generally described as being located at the southwest corner of N 800 Road and E 1485 Road.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, applicant, for John Stevens, Concrete Inc., property owner of record. 

 

Item 1 was pulled from the Consent Agenda

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Day introduced the item, a request to replat a single parcel within an existing rural subdivision.  The parcel had been noted as a private park on the original plat, and the applicant requested the replat to allow use of the property for a single-family residence.

 

Ms. Day showed the location of the subject property on the corner of the second phase of Quantrill Acres subdivision.

 

Staff explained that several members of the public were present, but they had been informed ahead of time that this was typically a non-public hearing item.  It was within the Commission’s purview to open the item for public comment.

 

Other points were noted:

  • The original developer had voluntarily platted the property with the original subdivision when he was not required to do so (before the County Zoning Regulations were adopted).
  • Staff’s review was centered on the compliance of the proposal with the County Zoning Regulations.  Based on this analysis, Staff recommended approval of the proposal with conditions as listed on the Staff Report.
  • It had been established that, although the subject property may be prone to flooding, was not located within the federally-designated FEMA floodplain.
  • The County Counsel, Evan Ice, advised Staff that the proposal adequately met the County Subdivision Regulations.

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

John Selk spoke on behalf of the property owner, saying his client had obtained a legal opinion that the subject parcel was privately owned and maintained, and the owner had the right to pursue residential development if he chose.  Mr. Selk said it made sense to develop this parcel to conform with the rest of the subdivision, and that the area was not currently used for any public/neighborhood use.

 

Mr. Selk responded to several questions:

  • The property owner did not receive any financial assistance from the neighborhood association for maintaining the subject property. 
  • The parcel is not dedicated as a public space on the plat or in the neighborhood covenants.
  • The applicant had tried to contact as many area residents as possible, and that the majority of those he contacted appeared to be in favor of the project.
  • The applicant was the one who constructed the existing sign and he was willing to relocate it to another suitable, prominent location.

 

The Commission agreed unanimously to open the floor for public comment on this item.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

Richard Hewitt, senior member of the Architectural Control Committee, said other members of the committee would have been present if they had known they would be allowed to speak.  Mr. Hewitt stated that the previous owner, Mrs. Anderson, had agreed to make the subject parcel a park at the request of the County Commission because a deep ravine ran through the lot and made the area prone to significant flooding.

 

Mr. Hewitt said the neighborhood used the subject area “at least for an annual meeting.”   He said the area was a “showpiece for the Quantrill area…enhancing and identifying it.”  He said it had always been “intended that there would be no building on this site.”

 

Mr. Hewitt said he had repainted the entry sign, which was made of concrete block and was a welcome sign and entry marker for residents, visitors, and potential buyers.

 

The speaker made several other comments:

  • Staff recommends a condition requiring the owner to take access off of John Brown Road, not 800 Rd.  Every residence in the area “has to do that,” but the subject property currently takes access from 800 Road.
  • Many residents have been in the area 30+ years and bought their land with the understanding that the subject are was and would continue to be a park entryway.
  • Mrs. Anderson sold the subject land because it was difficult and costly to maintain.
  • Residents were not given enough time to react to the notice they received and were told they would not get a chance to speak at this meeting.

 

Haase asked if any attempt had been made by area residents to jointly purchase the subject area.  Mr. Hewitt said if they had know the previous owner intended to sell the land, he thought “they would have been happy to pitch in and buy it.”  Haase asked if this was something that might still be considered.  Mr. Hewitt responded that he thought “we are way beyond that.”.

 

Burress asked if Mr. Hewitt perceived that he had some kind of legal right to enjoy that park (the  subject area) as part of his own property.  Mr. Hewitt replied that seeing it on the plat was an incentive behind his own land purchase, and that it was intended by the (previous) developer to be used by residents of both Quantrill Acres and Quantrill Overlook.

 

 

Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, asked to clarify for the record that the subject property is not within the designated floodplain.  He said the County Commission minutes regarding the plat were researched and legal opinions were sought, with the conclusion that the subject land is private property.  He said it would be different if a Homeowner’s or Neighborhood Association had been paying maintenance fees, but they had not.

 

Mr. Werner referenced the existing sign, saying this was a 5 acre lot, and there should be plenty of room to accommodate the proposed single-family home and the relocated sign.

 

Mr. Werner responded to questioning that the applicant would be amenable to working with the area Architectural Review Committee on a design for the proposed house.

 

 

 

STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS

Ms. Day said one area resident had indicated to Staff that she had discussed a possible sale of the property with the property owner.  The sale had not occurred because “the price for this individual parcel was out of [her] range.”

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Burress asked to what extent a property owner had a “right to plat.”  Ms. Day said this was more of a legal question, but it was Staff’s understanding that if a person owned a piece of land and could meet the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, they did have the ability to submit for a replat.

 

The applicant responded to questioning that the applicant took ownership of the subject property in 1993.  It was assumed that he did not intend to develop the land for his personal residence, since he currently lived directly across the road this lot.  Haase suggested that this information was not germane to the Commission’s review.

 

Harris asked if the applicant would be willing to discuss the possibility of selling the land to the area residents.  Mr. Werner replied that he was hesitant to say, “yes”, because he did not want the project deferred unnecessarily.  He pointed out that discussions of this nature would not be precluded by the Commission’s approval of tonight’s proposal.

 

The Commission asked if Mr. Hewitt had additional comments.  He stated that the previous owner/developer had made a verbal agreement that the subject area would remain a park area in perpetuity, but this was never put into writing.  It was suggested that this left the area residents some line of action toward the previous owner, but the current applicant had done nothing to prevent his proposed use of the land.

 

Some Commissioners agreed that approving the plat would not prevent discussions taking place about a possible purchase of the land.  However, some felt this “got the ball rolling” in the direction of development.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Jennings, seconded by Finkeldei to approve the Final Plat for Steven’s Addition, 2nd Plat, and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       Provision of a revised Final Plat to add a note that prohibits direct access to N 800 Road;

2.       Execution of an agreement regarding the provision of a water meter for the proposed lot; and

3.       Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a.      Copy of paid property tax receipt; and

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

 

          Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

 

PC Minutes 6/26/06  DRAFT

ITEM NO. 2A :          USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR EXPANSION AT LAWRENCE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; 325 MAINE STREET (LAP)

 

UPR-04-04-06:  Use Permitted upon Review request for the expansion of Lawrence Memorial Hospital, located at 325 Maine Street.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for the City of Lawrence, property owner of record. This item was deferred from the May Planning Commission meeting.

 

PC Minutes 6/26/06  DRAFT

ITEM NO. 2B :          FINAL PLAT FOR LAWRENCE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADDITION; 325 MAINE STREET (LAP)

 

PF-05-13-06: Final Plat for Lawrence Memorial Hospital Addition. The property includes approximately 23.860 acres and is generally described as being located North of W. 4th Street between Arkansas and Maine Streets, along the West side of Arkansas Street, South of W. 3rd Street, and along the North side of W. 4th Street between Michigan and Arkansas Streets. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for the City of Lawrence, property owner of record.

 

Items 2A & 2B were discussed simultaneously

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Pool introduced the items, a UPR and a Final Plat for expansion and modification of Lawrence Memorial Hospital facilities and parking areas. She noted that the entire hospital property would be zoned H (Hospital) when the City’s new Development Code goes into effect on July 1, 2006, and described surrounding zoning and uses.

 

In Staff’s opinion, further evaluation of several Master Plan elements was needed and, therefore, deferral of the UPR was recommended.  Specific elements Staff would like to review further included:

  • Vehicular circulation in the parking areas;
  • Pedestrian activity through parking area;
  • Anticipated volume of vehicles in the parking areas;
  • Possible improvements to 2nd & 3rd Streets;
  • Possible traffic signals at 4th/Maine and 4th/Michigan;
  • Potential rerouting of public transit service and relocation of transit stops;
  • The project’s impact, if any, on a recently completed nearby drainage project;
  • Loss of greenspace; and
  • The new curb cut off Maine Street.

 

Staff supported the proposed vacation of right-of-way within the 300 block of Arkansas Street and recommended approval of the Final Plat as presented, but asked for additional time with the UPR to study the impact of closing the 300 block of Arkansas Street and interrupting the existing grid street pattern.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

C.L. Mauer, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He said the applicant had recently met with the Transit Advisory Board.  The Board expressed no opposition to the proposal and indicated that changing the transit route to go through the hospital property would improve transit service in the area.  The applicant was not able to get these comments in writing in time for this meeting.

 

Regarding drainage issues, the applicant was unclear as to what additional information Staff wanted.  Mr. Mauer explained how existing drainage problems would be improved with this proposal.

 

Other points were made:

  • Closing Arkansas Street provides an additional 125 off-street parking spaces for the hospital in an area where on-street parking is challenged.
  • Circulation in the parking areas is addressed by designing access between Maine and Michigan Streets according to the proposed new Access Management policies.
  • A right-out only access was provided from the parking area onto 4th Street per Staff request.

 

Mr. Mauer said the applicant knew that additional work with Staff will be needed, but would like to continue moving forward in the process.  He responded to questioning that deferral of both the UPR and Final Plat could potentially keep the applicant from pulling a building permit in August as needed to complete the proposal before the construction season ended.  It was clarified that the next project phase included internal building renovations.  Mr. Mauer explained that parking changes would need to happen concurrently with the internal changes to consistently provide usable parking areas.

 

Haase pointed out that the “improved” bus routes could be accomplished even without this proposal and asked why the transit service did not make these changes before.  Mr. Mauer was not able to address this specific question, but said the Transit Advisory Board had not recognized this potential for improved services until they looked at this proposal.

 

It was discussed that the hospital grounds are owned by the City of Lawrence, but that the facilities and private drives are maintained by the hospital.

 

Harris asked if the applicant had considered keeping Arkansas Street open as a private road with access.  Mauer said this would result in a private road with parallel on-street parking instead of dedicated parking areas on hospital property.  Staff responded to questioning that this was one of several elements that they had not had enough time to review; they would like to study several design options before making a formal recommendation. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill provided clarification on why Staff was willing to recommend approval of a Final Plat that vacated right-of-way when the street design was in question.  She said vacating the right-of-way changed setback requirements, giving the applicant flexibility to manipulate parking arrangements.  She added that this r-o-w vacation did not give the hospital board full control of the parking lot design– the City maintained the authority to review site plans for all expansions or modifications of the site.  Staff recommendation for deferral of the UPR was based on the evolving Hospital Master Plan – the plan had simply not been stable long enough for proper review by staff and ample time had not been provided for input from the neighborhood.

 

Ms. Stogsdill responded to questioning that Staff could attempt to complete the necessary review in time for the July meeting, but a deferral to August might be more realistic.

 

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING – on UPR only

Kelly Driscoll, area resident, said she was happy to see growth in the area, but noted that residents were overpowered by hospital property in this part of the Pinckney Neighborhood.  Ms. Driscoll said not many people were going to be as directly impacted as she would be by this project, and they had not been given adequate notice (time) to respond to the latest version of the plan.

 

Ms. Driscoll referenced previous comments that but stops were not located on private property, saying there was a bus stop sign directly in front of her house.  She also asked about the possibility of a stop light at 4th & Maine Streets, saying this was completely unnecessary.  She asked if the placement of this stop light would remove mature trees from her yard, which provided her only visual barrier to the hospital.

 

Mehrdad Givechi, traffic engineer for the project, clarified that no new traffic signals were proposed as part of this project.  The Level of Service at these intersections would be improved using other measures (Ex. left-turn lanes).  If traffic volumes required additional measures, a 4-way stop would be considered.  The newest addendum to the application included these elements (this addendum was provided after the Staff Report and Commissioner packets were complete).

 

Burress asked Mr. Givechi to discuss with Ms. Driscoll how the traffic changes would impact her property.

 

Gwen Klingenberg spoke on behalf of the Pinckney Neighborhood Association, agreeing with previous speakers that the plan had changed significantly since the neighborhood had seen it last and that more review time was needed. 

 

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Mauer responded to the previous speaker’s concerns, saying the applicant was willing to work with the City to improve 3rd Street to City standards once the extent of improvements was established.

 

STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS

Staff had no additional comments.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Burress asked what steps could be taken to improve neighborhood notice.  Staff said the most important step in that process was to provide adequate review time with a static plan.  In this case, changes were happening too frequently to keep the neighborhood up-to-date on each revision.  This was the basis for Staffs’ recommendation for deferral.  Jennings commented that deferral might be the appropriate action, but that delays were paid for in this case out of community tax dollars, not from the pocket of a private developer.

 

Ms. Stogsdill responded to questioning that a one-month deferral would be challenging for Staff, but they would do their best to complete the necessary review on that schedule, provided the applicant could supply the needed information.

 

It was discussed that approving the Final Plat gave the applicant and Staff a footprint to work with.  Burress said he was uncomfortable vacating right-of-way without seeing a development plan.  He was hesitant to change the existing grid street pattern without seeing how the new street design would work.

 

 

 

 

 

Burress spoke about the value of the grid street pattern as a highly-adaptable system, providing many alternative routes for traffic.  Jennings noted that Arkansas Street would never be a true through-street, and leaving it open provided only an additional three blocks of uninterrupted street.  Burress said it would not significantly hurt the project to defer the plat for one month to see the pieces together.

 

Item 2A

Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Harris to defer Item 2A to the July 2006 meeting.

 

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0

 

Item 2B

Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Finkeldei to approve the Final Plat for Lawrence Memorial Hospital Addition and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Provision of the following fees and documentation:

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

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

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

d.      A Temporary Utility Agreement.

2.         Pinning of both lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.

3.         Revision of the plat to include the following:

a.      Notation of vacation of Arkansas Street right-of-way from 3rd to 4th Streets.

b.      Notation of which easements are existing and proposed.

c.      Additional utility easements to accommodate the sanitary sewer and water mains as shown on the City’s Geographic Information Systems map.

d.      Notation of the 80-foot utility easement within the vacated Missouri Street right-of-way.

e.      Additional drainage easements to accommodate the stormwater mains as shown on the City’s Geographic Information Systems map.

f.       Notation of the off-site drainage easements along the northern and eastern sides of Woody Park.

g.      Notation of the Floodplain Overlay District which touches Woody Park.

h.      Notation of the long-term lease with Douglas County for the emergency vehicle storage facility at the northeast portion of the hospital site.    

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

                            


10 minute recess – reconvene at 8:55 p.m.

 

PC Minutes 6/26/06

ITEM NO. 3:              CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR MIDNIGHT FARM; 2084 N 600 ROAD (LAP)

 

CUP-04-03-06:  Conditional Use Permit request for Midnight Farm, located at 2084 N 600 Road.  This proposed residential living facility contains approximately 40.52 acres.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Community Living Opportunities, property owner of record.

 

Finkeldei was recused.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Pool introduced the item, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an 8-unit residential development for adults with developmental disabilities.  She outlined the general details of the proposal:

  • The 8-unit total included one existing home and one new structure to replace a current building. 
  • The development would include many amenities designed and intended to provide rural living opportunities and experiences for its residents and other clients of CLO, the non-profit organization making this application. 
  • The proposed dwelling units would be leased to CLO employees and each dwelling would include up to 2 CLO staff, up to 2 CLO children and up to 2 CLO clients.
  • Final build out of the development was anticipated for 2015.
  • A variance has been approved from the Douglas County Sanitary Code, allowing them to have up to 9 septic systems on the overall property.
  • The 8 units were proposed to be clustered to retain a maximum of existing natural vegetation within and around (buffering) the development.
  • Although the plan was to cluster housing units, the site plan included lot lines showing how the area might be subdivided to fit the provisions of the A-1 Zoning District.
  • It was noted that a septic evaluation had been conducted and approved far ahead of a typical development process schedule.

 

Staff recommended approval of the CUP, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Report.  Among these conditions was a 10 year sunset on the CUP, at which time the applicant would need to apply for a new CUP or renewal of the existing CUP.  Staff also recommended a 5-year review period, providing an opportunity for the County Commission and public to comment on the suitability of the project for the area.

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant and introduced other CLO representatives.  He said CLO understood when they bought the property that they would be able to develop the land under County standards in place at that time.  They asked Landplan to help them design a project that would maximize benefits for CLO clientele, preserve the rural character of the area and minimize their impact on surroundings.  Elements designed to achieve these goals included:

  • Centralized living areas (clustered housing);
  • Preservation of large wooded areas and stream beds;
  • Provision of a natural trail winding through natural areas;
  • Inclusion of a swimming pool, barnyard/livestock area, and gardening area/greenhouse; and
  • Creation of a shared, central drive maintained as a private drive.

 

Mr. Herndon elaborated on the applicant’s provision of plans showing how each homesite could be platted separately – all according to County regulations for access, setbacks and minimum lot size - if such a need arose in the future.

 

Mr. Herndon asked the Commission to consider revisions to Staffs’ recommended conditions as follows:

 

  • Condition 3b.  Change the expiration date to 2017, since it will be 2007 before the development process is complete.
  • Condition 3c.  Add to the end of the sentence, “…except as shown on this plan and/or as necessary to install fencing.” This will allow lateral fields as already prescribed by the Douglas County Health department.
  • Condition 3h.  Remove this condition because it is quite difficult to fully predict when all amenities and ancillary structures will be completed.
  • Condition 3j.   Change the contact to the County Administrator’s Office instead of the City/County Planning Department.

 

Krebs asked why the proposal was being made as a CUP instead a rezoning and plat.  Staff explained the County regulations listed a number of operations that could be considered as a CUP, which included non-profit organizations.  County Administrator Keith Dabney had been consulted regarding approaching the project in this manner.  It was noted that platting was not always necessary for CUP’s, but this proposal would include a plat because of easements and rights-of-way.