PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Meeting minutes

September 2006

_____________________________________________________________

September 25, 2006 – 7:00 p.m.

Commissioners present: Burress, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins, Harris, Jennings, Krebs and Lawson

Staff present: Stogsdill, Ahrens, M. Miller, Patterson, Pool, Rexwinkle, Warner and Kemerling

_____________________________________________________________

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Receive and amend or approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of August 21, 23 and 30, 2006 

Ms. Stogsdill indicated the minutes for the three August meetings were not yet ready for approval.

 

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

T2030:  Commissioner Haase reported that the minutes for the last meeting will be distributed to the Planning Commission once they are complete. 

PCCM: Conditional zoning as well as long term land use as they pertain to T2030 were discussed at the 9/13/2006 Planning Commission mid-month meeting.

 

COMMUNICATIONS

Ms. Stogsdill outlined the following communications:

 

ITEM 1:  Final Plat for Four Seasons Addition

 

ITEM 6:  Conditional Use Permit for Verizon Wireless

 

ITEM 9:  Revisions to Chapter 20, Development Code

 

ITEM 10:  Revisions to Chapter 20, Development Code

 

ITEM 12: Rezoning; 917 Delaware

 

 

ITEM 14:  Preliminary Development Plan for Mercato

 

 

EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUESTS

 

 

 

PC Minutes 9/25/06

ITEM NO. 1:              FINAL PLAT FOR FOUR SEASONS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY; SW CORNER OF CLINTON PARKWAY & CROSSGATE DRIVE

 

PF-08-21-06:  Final Plat for Four Seasons Retirement Community, a three lot residential subdivision containing approximately 25.976 acres. The property is located west of the SW corner of Clinton Parkway and Crossgate Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for Inverness Park Limited Partnership, property owner of record.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Haase to recommend approval of the Final Plat for the Four Seasons Retirement Community and forwarding it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and 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.

e)     Documentation demonstrating that all special assessments for the subject property have been paid.

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

3.         Submittal of public improvement plans as appropriate for the construction of water, sanitary sewer, and sidewalk improvements.

4.         Revision of the plat to include the following:

a.      Notation of existing easements being vacated with this plat.

b.      A note, stating that if the utility easements being dedicated with this plat are not sufficient for utilities, additional easements will be dedicated via separate instrument.

c.      Notation of Clinton Parkway right-of-way which meets City standards.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 9/25/06

ITEM NO. 2A:           FINAL PLAT FOR PRAIRIE WIND ADDITION; 2620 HASKELL AVENUE

 

PF-08-22-06:  Final Plat for Prairie Wind Addition, a one lot residential subdivision containing approximately 3.04 acres. The property is located at 2620 Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Dean Grob with Grob Engineering Services, for Thervald & Elaine M. Holmes, property owners of record.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Haase to approve the Final Plat for the Prairie Wind Addition and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and 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 the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.

3.      Submittal of public improvement plans for the extension of Ryan Court, sidewalks, and water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater mains.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda for further discussion.

PC Minutes 9/25/06

ITEM NO. 2B:           FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PRAIRIE WIND ADDITION; 2620 HASKELL AVENUE

 

FDP-08-05-06:  Final Development Plan for Prairie Wind Addition. The plan proposes the construction of 17 detached dwellings on approximately 3.04 acres. The property is located at 2620 Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Allen Belot, for Thervald & Elaine M. Holmes, property owners of record.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Allen Belot, appearing for applicant, requested Item 2B be removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to the Regular Agenda. 

 

Chair Krebs asked for a vote to allow removal of Item 2B from the Consent Agenda and adding it to the Regular Agenda for Public Hearing. 

 

Vote  8-0-1 in favor of allowing Item 2B to move to the Regular Agenda; Comm. Burress abstained.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Lisa Pool, Planning Staff, gave a brief introduction and overview of the Final Development Plan for Prairie Wind Addition.

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Allen Belot, for applicant, expressed concern that there was extensive discussion during a City Commission consideration of the preliminary development plan regarding installation of a view reducing fence.  The City Commission did not feel inclined to require a fence around the property.  Mr. Belot stated that Staff added the fence requirement as condition 3b.  Mr. Belot asked that the view reducing fence requirement be excluded from the conditions for approval of the final development plan. 

 

Mr. Belot requested clarification of condition 2 regarding maintenance of common open space.   He stated this was a new condition based on what was discussed and agreed by the City Commission.  Additionally, Mr. Belot said condition 3d could cause a potential conflict with public works if the condition relates specifically to public improvements and not just driveway dimensions. 

 

Ms. Pool said the City Commission did not require perimeter fencing, but the applicant had previously stated that he was not averse to providing a view-reducing fence for 2600 Haskell.  The condition for the driveway dimensions are code requirements.  She commented that there is an existing daycare at 2600 Haskell Avenue which prompted the property owner to request the view reducing fence.

 

Mr. Belot responded that at the City Commission meeting, he stated that the applicant would put up a view-reducing fence if it is a condition of approval, but it was struck from approval completely. At the time of the City Commission meeting, the applicant did not realize a fence already existed along a portion of 2600 Haskell.  Mr. Belot stated he had no objection with going to the property owner and asking if he wanted a fence installed on his property, but he would rather the fence be on the neighbor’s property and not be a structure the homeowner’s association must maintain.   Mr. Belot questioned why it is necessary to file the covenants now and if the subdivision covenants must be filed before the final development plan.

 

Ms. Stogsdill said the subdivision covenants and the final development plan would be filed at the same time.

 

Comm. Lawson asked the length of the fence that must be installed along the property line that abuts 2600 Haskell and if the applicant would be willing to build the fence on his property. 

 

Mr. Belot replied that the fence would be approximately 60-80 feet long and the applicant would prefer it be installed on the neighbor’s property.  He said that it seems strange to separate a residential area from other residential areas.  The portion of the property that is not currently fenced faces a heavily forested area of the development that the property owner would like to retain.

 

Comm. Lawson asked why the adjoining property owner would like to have the fence.

 

Mr. Belot said the fear of development prompted the original request.  Additional concerns about pedestrians cutting through yards were also citied.  Mr. Belot noted that the plan includes sidewalk connections to Haskell and E. 26th, and that pedestrians will not be cutting through yards once the infrastructure is in place. 

 

Comm. Burress asked if there is a good faith commitment to build a fence.

 

Mr. Belot replied that he would be willing to do so.

 

Comm. Harris said the plan shows that the northernmost sidewalk runs along the property line and asked if there will be trees on the other side of the sidewalk, within the boundaries of the development.  She also questioned if there is a concern that passerbys would be able to look into the daycare.   

 

Mr. Belot said that there are trees, but cannot say if they are between the sidewalk and the property line. 

 

Comm. Finkeldei asked if condition 2, recording of covenants, is a standard condition. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill confirmed that the condition is required by code and should have appeared on previous development plans. 

 

 

 

 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Finkeldei, seconded by Comm. Jennings to approve the Final Development Plan for Prairie Wind Addition, subject to the following conditions (revised to remove 3b) contained within the body of the Staff report.:

1.      Provision of the following fees and documentation:

a)     A Site Plan Performance Agreement.

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

2.      Recordation at the Register of Deeds’ Office of covenants governing maintenance of all common space, with the Book and Page number noted on the plan and a copy of the document provided to the Planning Office.

3.      Revision of the Final Development Plan to include the following changes:

a)     Revision of the following note to clarify if the intent is to replace trees designated as remaining, or any tree damaged or destroyed: “If tree is damaged or destroyed during construction, then replacement shall be required.”

b)     Inclusion of a view-reducing fence abutting 2600 Haskell Avenue. Height, materials, and location of this fencing should be included on the plan.

c)      Inclusion of the following note: “The detention area will be privately-owned and maintained. The developer is responsible for establishing ownership and maintenance of same via individual owner maintenance. Structures, fences, and cut/fill operations are prohibited within drainage easements.”

 

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Lawson questioned whether to remove condition 3b, as the applicant is agreeable to providing fencing and why the Commission should consider removal of that condition.

 

Comm. Finkeldei stated that it depends on how the condition is read; whether the requirement is to put the fence along the entire stretch of 2600 Haskell and on which property.  He agreed that the fence would be a big concern for the homeowner’s association and would entertain alternate language. 

 

Comm. Haase asked if the public stated concerns with the fencing in a previous Planning Commission meeting.  He recalled multiple neighbors citing concern with the fencing and did not wish to reverse a major concession made at a public meeting.  Comm. Haase questioned if the public spoke at the City Commission meeting.

 

Mary Miller, Staff, said that during the Planning Commission meeting for the Preliminary Development Plan, the public clearly stated they wanted a perimeter fence primarily because they were unhappy with the development.  Later in the process, the public said they did not want the fence because it separated the neighborhood and they wished to retain the neighborhood as a continuous area.  Only the daycare owner still wants the fence.  No members of the public spoke out about the lack of a fencing requirement during the City Commission meeting for the Preliminary Development Plan. 

 

 

 

Comm. Finkeldei stated that the City Commission discussed the fencing issue and decided not to impose the condition.   

 

Comm. Lawson said that wooden fences could become unsightly over time and, from a practical standpoint, he has issues with imposing fencing. 

 

ACTION TAKEN

The motion on the floor was to approve the Final Development Plan for Prairie Wind Addition, subject to the following conditions (revised to remove 3b) contained within the body of the Staff report:

1.      Provision of the following fees and documentation:

a)     A Site Plan Performance Agreement.

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

2.      Recordation at the Register of Deeds’ Office of covenants governing maintenance of all common space, with the Book and Page number noted on the plan and a copy of the document provided to the Planning Office.

3.      Revision of the Final Development Plan to include the following changes:

a)     Revision of the following note to clarify if the intent is to replace trees designated as remaining, or any tree damaged or destroyed: “If tree is damaged or destroyed during construction, then replacement shall be required.”

b)     Inclusion of a view-reducing fence abutting 2600 Haskell Avenue. Height, materials, and location of this fencing should be included on the plan.

c)      Inclusion of the following note: “The detention area will be privately-owned and maintained. The developer is responsible for establishing ownership and maintenance of same via individual owner maintenance. Structures, fences, and cut/fill operations are prohibited within drainage easements.”

 

 

                     Motion passed unanimously, 9-0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 9/25/06

ITEM NO. 3A:           PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LIVENGOOD ESTATES; E 1800 ROAD BETWEEN N 1000 AND N 1100 ROADS

 

PP-04-07-06:  Preliminary Plat request for Livengood Estates Subdivision, located east of E 1800 Road between N 1000 and N 1100 Roads.  This proposed four lot residential subdivision contains approximately 40.91 acres.  Submitted by Dallas Livengood, applicant, for Victoria & Clifford Pagles, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the June 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Haase to approve the Preliminary Plat of Livengood Estates Subdivision, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:

1.      Revision of the preliminary plat to include the following:

a.      Per Section 21-301.2(d) show location of tree masses (wooded area) & provide a general note on the proposed use of the wooded areas.

b.      Per Section 21-301.3(g) show building envelopes for the proposed lots. Building envelopes shall go no farther than 150’ into the existing wooded area of the lots.

c.      Re-label the shared access notes to conform to the lot numbers.

d.      Provide a 10’ Utility Easement along the east side of E 1800 Road right-of-way.

e.      Removal of General Note No. 15 referencing a signature on the preliminary plat.

f.       Correct the acreage shown for each of the lots.

2.      Addition of the following general notes to the preliminary plat:

a.      “The owner(s), executor(s), their successors and assigns hereby agree to hook into the public sewer system when the sanitary sewer facilities are within 1,000 feet of this plat.”

b.      “The owner(s), executor(s), their successors and assigns hereby agree to annex into the City of Lawrence at the time of municipal utility service provision.”

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 9/25/06

ITEM NO. 3B:           FINAL PLAT FOR LIVENGOOD ESTATES; E 1800 ROAD BETWEEN N 1000 AND N 1100 ROADS

 

PF-08-23-06:  Final Plat request for Livengood Estates Subdivision, located east of E 1800 Road between N 1000 and N 1100 Roads.  This proposed four lot residential subdivision contains approximately 40.91 acres.  Submitted by Dallas Livengood, applicant, for Victoria & Clifford Pagles, property owners of record.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Haase to approve the Final Plat of Livengood Estates and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for acceptance of easements and right-of-way, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions: 

  1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
    1. Copy of paid property tax receipt;
    2. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
  2. Revision of final plat to include the following:
    1. Change the Planning Commission Chairperson’s name to Holly Krebs.
    2. Re-label the shared access notes to conform to the lot numbers.
    3. Provide a 10’ Utility Easement along the east side of E 1800 Road right-of-way.
    4. Provide building envelopes which go no farther than 150’ into the existing wooded area of the lots.
    5. Correct the acreage shown for each lot.
    6.  Revise the owners’ jurat to replace ‘Shawnee County’ with ‘Douglas County’.

3.      Addition of the following general notes to the final plat:

a.      “The owner(s), executor(s), their successors and assigns hereby agree to hook into the public sewer system when the sanitary sewer facilities are within 1,000 feet of this plat.”

b.      “The owner(s), executor(s), their successors and assigns hereby agree to annex into the City of Lawrence at the time of municipal utility service provision.”

4.      The subdivider will need to provide a letter from the Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department that septic systems, as a method of sewage disposal for the subdivision, have been approved.

5.      A written Water Supply Agreement will need to be signed and notarized between the Development and the Health Department. This written agreement would need to be recorded with the final plat.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 9/25/06

ITEM NO. 4:              FINAL PLAT FOR GLENWOOD ADDITION; LOCATED WEST OF WAKARUSA DRIVE AND EAST OF EISENHOWER DRIVE

 

PF-08-31-05:  Approval of revised easements for Final Plat of Glenwood Addition, a 12 lot residential subdivision containing approximately 12.6 acres. The property is generally located west of Wakarusa Drive and east of Eisenhower Drive. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Glenwood LC, property owner of record.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Haase to approve the revised Final Plat for Glenwood Addition, reflecting revised utility and drainage easements, and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions (those highlighted in yellow have not yet been met):

1.      Submittal of a downstream analysis for wastewater services and approval of this analysis by the city’s Utilities Department prior to scheduling of the final plat on the City Commission’s agenda for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way.

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

3.      Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

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

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

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

4.      A Temporary Utility Agreement.

5.      Submittal of public improvement plans for the extension of water, sewer, and stormwater improvements.

6.      Revision of the final plat to include the following:

a)     Deletion of the 10-foot pedestrian easement at the southwest corner of Lot 7. Instead, notation of a 10-foot pedestrian easement should be included along the western and southern sides of Lot 7.

b)  A note, stating that only one access point is allowed to Wakarusa Drive for Lot 13.

c)  Indication, with hatch marks, of no access allowed onto Wakarusa Drive, except at approved point.

d)  Notation of the Book and Page number for the cross access agreement related to providing access from Lot 1 to the access easement that will serve the multi-family portion of the site.

e)  Minimum elevations for building openings (MEBOs) for all lots (Lots 6, 7, 8, & 13) adjacent to drainage easements.

f)   Revision of the Planning Commission Chair to Holly Krebs.

 

 

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

 

At this time the Commission moved to Item 8

 

 

REGULAR AGENDA (SEPTEMBER 25, 2006) MEETING:

 

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:

 

SWEARING IN OF SPEAKERS:

 

Item 5 was deferred to the Wednesday meeting at the applicant’s request.

 

PC Minutes 9/27/06

ITEM NO. 5:              SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR T-MOBILE; 2206 E 23RD STREET (SLD)

 

SUP-07-01-06:  Special Use Permit for a 150’ T-Mobile monopole cellular tower and equipment shelter. The property is located at 2206 E 23rd Street. Submitted by Selective Site Consultants for T-Mobile Central LLC dba T-Mobile. Knights of Columbus Council 1372 are the property owner of record. (This item was deferred from the August Planning Commission meeting at the applicant’s request).

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Sandra Day, Staff, gave a brief introduction and overview regarding placement and construction of the new communications tower at the Knights of Columbus site.   

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Jess Louk, Selective Site Consultants, stated the tower meets specifications and requirements.

 

Comm. Eichhorn asked if the stealth tower will hold at least 2 other carriers and what were the impacts of using a stealth tower instead of a traditional tower.

 

Mr. Louk replied that the 150 foot tower will hold 3 carriers.  He said the “stealth” tower design has pros and cons but he is willing to go along with the current plan.  He said the tower limits propagation or disbursement in a 360° direction.  In a highly dense area this can result in a request for a second tower in the same area.  Installation of stealth towers results in towers closer together.

 

Comm. Harris asked if the permit carries with the property if the property is sold. 

 

Ms. Day stated the permit would carry.

 

Comm. Burress questioned how much area reduction would occur with a different type of tower. 

 

Shay Bernard, T-mobile, said there would be an approximate 5-10% footprint decrease  and an approximate 10-20% reduction in area coverage.  

 

PUBLIC HEARING

No members of public spoke regarding this item.

 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Harris, seconded by Comm. Haase to approve SUP-07-01-06, a Special Use Permit for the construction of a 150’ tower and placement of antenna and accessory structure and forwarding of it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions:

 

1.      Completion of an independent review prior to consideration of the request by the City Commission.

2.      Execution of a site plan performance agreement.

3.      Facility shall be inspected annually at owner’s expense and inspection report shall be filed with Planning Director per section 20-529 (4).

4.      Provision of a fee “sufficient to cover the cost of an independent study and provision of a form authorizing the city to use those funds to hire consulting engineers to review the application and advise the city on the extent to which the applicant has or has not met the Burden of Proof, required by subsection  20-529 (7)”. (Such fee shall be established by the City Commission) per section 20-529 (6);

5.      Parking lot shall be restriped around tower, per staff approval to maintain access circulation and parking.

6.      Future parking lot lighting shall require provision of a photometric plan per staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit.

7.      Show and note any lighting for the equipment within the base compound area per staff approval. Lighting shall be shielded and directed downward.

8.      Provision of a revised site plan to show and note the utility easement including the deed book and page reference.

 

 

          Motion passed unanimously, 10-0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 9/25/06

ITEM NO. 6:    CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VERIZON WIRELESS; 1271 N 222 ROAD (SLD)

 

CUP-08-06-06:  Conditional Use Permit for Verizon Wireless, for a 150’, 4 carrier monopole tower and equipment shelter. The property is located at 1271 N 222 Road. Submitted by Verizon Wireless LLC, for Ronald E. and Margaret E. Shouse, property owners of record.

 

 

Item 6 was deferred prior to the meeting at the applicant’s request.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Items 7A & 7B were deferred prior to the meeting.

Recess LDCMPC

Convene joint meeting with Eudora Planning Commission

 

PC Minutes 9/25/06

ITEM NO. 7A:           A AND VC TO A-1; 10 ACRES; 1273 E. 1900 ROAD (LAP)

Deferred 


Z-08-23-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 10 acres, from A (Agricultural) and VC (Valley Channel) to A-1 (Suburban Home Residential District). The property is located at 1273 E. 1900 Road. Submitted by David C. and Pamela W. Morrison, property owners of record. This is a joint meeting with Eudora Planning Commission.

 

 

 

DeferredITEM NO. 7B:           PRELIMINARY PLAT REQEUST FOR WAKARUSA FARM ESTATES; 1273 E 1900 (LAP)

 

PP-08-12-06:  Preliminary Plat request for Wakarusa Farm Estates, located at 1273 E. 1900 Road.  The proposed residential subdivision contains approximately 9 acres.  Submitted by David C. and Pamela W. Morrison, property owners of record. This is a joint meeting with Eudora Planning Commission.

 

Recess joint meeting with Eudora Planning Commission

Reconvene LDCMPC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 9/25/06

ITEM NO. 8:              AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 3 & 5 OF THE COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS

 

TA-08-07-06:  Amendments to Articles 3 & 5 of the County Zoning Regulations regarding the definition of lot width and the establishment of setbacks along roads based upon road classification.  [Revisions associated with proposed rural development regulations.]

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Sheila Stogsdill, Staff, gave a brief overview of the amendments regarding changing setback and frontage requirements.  Amendments will add definitions to clarify verbiage and insert specific terminology. 

 

Comm. Burress stated that some of the language is problematic and questioned whether there are time sensitive issues that need to be addressed immediately or whether the changes could be sent to Staff.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that the legal notice has not been sent out and as the subdivision regulations are not scheduled until October, there is not a time issue. 

 

PUBLIC HEARING

No member of the public spoke regarding this item.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Burress said the text should be understandable and adhere to mathematical principles.  He stated the definitions should be clearer, for example, “street frontage” and “all of property” should be clarified to define all of lots or all of parcels.  Frontage and portion probably means a line, not an area.  He said a line is one dimensional and it should be decided whether an area or line is meant. 

 

Comm. Krebs stated that a line of a lot is not clear and questioned whether a border or perimeter is meant.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that the Commission could highlight areas needing rewording and the changes could be brought back to the Planning Commission for consideration.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Burress and seconded by Comm. Harris to defer Item 8 to the October Planning Commission meeting. 

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Harkins asked if the Development Code was written by a professional consultant and reviewed by Staff and if standard nomenclature was used. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that the Code was written by a consultant in conjunction with the former Planning Director and was based on discussions held over the past year. 

Comm. Harkins expressed concerns regarding the amount of time required for proof reading the Development Code in its entirety. 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to defer Item 8 to the October Planning Commission meeting. 

 

          Motion passed 8-1 with Comm. Harkins in opposition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 9/25/06

ITEM NO. 9:              REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE

 

TA-07-06-06:  Consider revisions to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted.  (Initiated by the Planning Commission on August 30, 2006).

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Joe Rexwinkle, Staff, gave an introduction to the Industrial/Business Park District portion of the Development Code and outlined recommended corrections.  Mr. Rexwinkle explained the IBP table which lists detailed changes. 

 

PUBLIC HEARING

No members of the public spoke regarding this item.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Finkeldei, seconded by Comm. Haase to forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed revisions [TA-07-06-06] to Articles 4,5,9,13,15 and 17 of the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” to the City Commission. 

 

          Motion passed 8-0-1, with Comm. Harris abstaining.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 9/25/06

ITEM NO. 10:           REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE

 

TA-09-09-06:  Consider initiations of revisions to Chapter 20, Development Code for future public hearing.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Joe Rexwinkle, Staff, gave an introduction and overview of the revisions to Article 5 regarding accessory dwelling units & Article 10 which addresses location and surfacing requirements for outdoor storage areas.  Mr. Rexwinkle stated the Development Code is silent on this issue.   

 

Comm. Burress questioned Staff’s response to the League of Women Voters communication regarding this item.  He stated the League’s point is to encourage more dense use to maintain owner occupancy.  He said the change could create a tendency to turn residences into rentals.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle replied that Staff will be looking into this issue over the next month and owner occupancy concerns will be taken into consideration.

 

Comm. Harris asked if the changes will be allowed in all RS districts. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill said that it will only be allowed in RS7 and larger lot districts.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

No member of the public spoke regarding this item. 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Finkeldei, seconded by Comm. Jennings to initiate the proposed revisions [TA-09-09-06] to the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” for public hearing at the October Planning Commission meeting.

 

                   Motion passed 8-0-1, with Comm. Harris abstaining.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 11 was deferred prior to the meeting.

 

PC Minutes 9/25/06

DeferredITEM NO. 11:           AMENDMENT TO HORIZON 2020, CHAPTER 6-COMMERCIAL LAND USE

 

CPA-2006-03: Consider amendments to Horizon 2020, Chapter 6- Commercial to address consistency issues in the Commercial Centers descriptions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 9/25/06

MISC. ITEM NO. 1: OLD BUSINESS

 

Resolution for Chapter 9, Horizon 2020, Parks Recreation and open space. (PGP)

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Paul Patterson, Staff, gave a brief introduction and overview.  Mr. Patterson stated this resolution is a follow up to the July 24th Planning Commission’s approval of the amendment for Chapter 9.  He said that after Planning Commission approval, a joint City Ordinance/County resolution will go on to City Commission and Board of County Commission for final approval. 

 

PUBLIC HEARING

No members of the public spoke regarding this item.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Haase, seconded by Comm. Harris to approve resolution 2006-02, Amendment to Horizon 2020, Chapter 9-Park, Recreation, Open Space Areas and Facilities and forward to the County and City Commissions for approval of a joint resolution/ordinance. 

 

     Motion passed 8-1 with Comm. Finkeldei in opposition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC Minutes 9/25/06

MISC. ITEM NO. 2:

 

PC continued discussion of proposed T2030 Future Land Use Map

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Bill Ahrens, Staff, gave an overview of the proposed T2030 Future Land Use map which incorporated changes suggested at the Planning Commission Mid-Month meeting.  The various maps showed different types of commercial centers, a legend was added, floodplain was added and steep slopes were added. 

 

Dan Warner, Staff, outlined changes made to the map and to the legend.  Commercial centers are correctly identified; changes were made to the legend to differentiate the various commercial center types. 

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Haase asked if the map was reflective of the FEMA floodplain or if it was FEMA plus two feet of freeboard. 

 

Mr. Warner replied that the map shows FEMA without adding freeboard.  He stated that it is not possible to show plus two yet as the contours for the County are not included and there is a wait for new aerials which should be available by the end of the year. 

 

Mr. Warner noted that steep slopes at 15% or greater are represented by wavy lines and pointed out areas of steep slope.

 

Comm. Haase questioned why 15% was selected as the definition of steep slope and asked if 10% should be used to show densities.  He stated that 15% seems to be an extreme measure and would be low density and potentially unbuildable. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill stated that 15% was used from Plan 95 forward.  There have been developments on steep inclines.  10% is the maximum for a public street without obtaining a variance from the City Commission to exceed that standard.  She said that some areas with 15% steep slope are buildable and does not know if 10% is a palatable option.