PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 23 & 25, 2006
Meeting Minutes
________________________________________________________________________
October 23, 2006 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Harkins, Harris, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson, and Finkeldei
Staff present: Stogsdill, Day, Leininger, M. Miller, Pool, Rexwinkle and Brown
________________________________________________________________________
MINUTES
Discussion regarding August 21, 23 & 30, 2006 draft minutes -
Suggestions from Commissioners Burress, Haase, Harris and Lawson regarding the August minutes were emailed to Sheila Stogsdill prior to the October Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Haase felt that the August minutes needed additional detail and that this would be essential in providing a clear record for City Commission. He did not feel comfortable gluing the minutes back together, but rather giving his opinion of what was discussed. He feels the memo that he wrote was a more accurate reflection of the Wal-Mart item that was discussed in August.
Commissioner Krebs stated she would like for Commissioner Haase’s suggestions to be added into the August minutes.
Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Lawson to amend the August minutes to include Commissioner Haase’s memo as an appendix.
Commissioner Harkins had questions about the procedural process about adding Commissioner Haase’s comments to the minutes without discussion. He asked staff if there was a recording of the August minutes that could be referred to.
Ms. Stogsdill responded that there was a recording but that the minutes are a summary, not verbatim.
Commissioner Harkins said he was not questioning the summary of the minutes, but just did not want Haase’s comments added. He wanted to vote against the motion because he felt it was not appropriate.
Commissioner Burress agreed with Commissioner Harkins but motioned to approve the minute changes and add Commissioner Haase’s comments as an appendix or memo.
Commissioner Lawson felt that Commissioner Haase’s memo was just one commissioners representation of the conversation regarding Wal-Mart.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that #3 & #4 from Commissioner Haase’s memo were comments on what happened that night but they were not minutes.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that Commissioner Haase could give the City Commission the additional information.
Commissioner Eichhorn said that Commissioner Haase’s comments may be editorial but no more then what are in minutes.
Commissioner Harkins said that this was a 5-5 vote and that this memo would be submitting a report that only tells half the story.
Commissioner Krebs stated that it would be clear in the minutes that Commissioners Haase’s email was his opinion of the points that were made.
Commissioner Haase said the alternative would be to extend the minutes more correctly. He would like to properly input what he felt was said and discussed. He went on to say that the Commissioners were asked to review the minutes for accuracy and he did not believe it to be accurate info.
Commissioner Burress said that when he went through the minutes he did not see his views but thought it would be hopeless in trying to change it. He reiterated that it was Commissioner Haase’s opinion on what happened and that they would only be voting on that.
Commissioner Finkeldei pointed out that if the Commission did that for this meeting that they could do it for every meeting and that there is a difference of a summary of what happened in the meeting. He would feel more comfortable passing a resolution to send Commissioner Haase’s comments to City Commission as an accurate summary as to what Commissioner Haase thought happened.
Commissioner Burress questioned if it was okay to put a memo in the August minutes but not other months?
Commissioner Haase said that adding written clarification is not setting a precedent and that it was done several months ago.
Motioned by Commissioner Burress, seconded by Commissioner Lawson to approve the minutes of the August 21, 23 & 30, 2006 meetings with revisions and memo from Commission Haase as an appendix.
Motion carried 6-4, with Commissioners Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Harris and Krebs voting in favor. Commissioners Finkeldei, Harkins, Jennings and Lawson voting in opposition.
Discussion regarding September 25 & 27, 2006 draft minutes -
Commissioner Burress wanted to clarify his comments in the September minutes regarding the T20230 Future Land Use Map discussion. He was not asking for the September minutes to be changed, but just wanted it noted in the October what he meant. He noticed a discussion in the September minutes where there was a misunderstanding between himself and Commissioner Harkins over the phrase top-down. Commissioner Burress stated that top-down had two almost opposite meanings and he was using one of them while Commissioner Harkins was using the other but that he basically agreed with Commissioner Harkins and was not in disagreement. Commissioner Burress said that Commissioner Harkins misunderstood him to be saying some expert makes a design and then force it upon everybody as opposed to adding a lot of discussion. Commission Burress agreed that this was bad and not what he meant. He was using the top down design in a sense that comes out of computer programming and consistent with good planning processes. He explained that the first thing is to have a general plan at the top and then a more detailed code to implement that plan and then more details yet to implement things. Work from the top to the bottom.
Commissioner Harkins discussed pages 25, 26 and 27 references to public input and value of a timeline.
Commissioners Krebs and Harkins agreed that on page 27 the summary was a little lacking in information.
Commissioner Harris suggested a small change on page 6 of the September minutes in the paragraph regarding the sidewalk “new neighbors” to “passerbys.”
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Finkeldei to approve the minutes of the September 25 & 27, 2006 meeting with discussed revisions.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner Erickson discussed that the Community Design Committee chose a code consultant.
Commissioner Eichhorn stated that the Development Committee discussed changes the City might make regarding using an existing software package or implementing a new one. He also said that a “one-stop-shop” department was discussed and that the edits will go to City Commission in October.
Rural Zoning Ordinances met and discussed the rural zoning ordinances. The committee hopes to break it up into six different group changes. The first thing that will be discussed will be Conditional Use Permits in the County.
Planning Commission Mid-Month discussed affordable housing and the waste water treatment plant.
COMMUNICATIONS
Miscellaneous
Item 7 – Revisions to Chapter 20, Development Code
Item 9 – CUP for Verizon Wireless
Item 10 – Rezoning; RS7 to RM12
· Letter in opposition, from Scott Grosdidier
Item 12 - T2030 Land Use Scenarios
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte
· No abstentions
· There were no deferral requests to consider
SWEARING IN OF SPEAKERS:
CONSENT AGENDA (OCTOBER 23, 2006) MEETING:
PC Minutes 10/23/06
ITEM NO. 1A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR JOYCE ADDITION; 912 NORTH IOWA STREET (JCR)
PP-08-13-06: Preliminary Plat for Joyce Addition. This proposed one lot industrial subdivision contains approximately .977 acres. The property is located at 912 North Iowa Street. Submitted by Grob Engineering Services, for John J. Joyce III, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Preliminary Plat for Joyce Addition based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
a. Revise Note #6 to be consistent with what is shown on plat, the existing structures have been razed; and
b. Update Note #8 to the current zoning classification, IG (General Industrial) as designated under the new Development Code.
Motion
carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
ITEM NO. 1B: FINAL PLAT FOR JOYCE ADDITION; 912 NORTH IOWA STREET (JCR)
PF-08-20-06: Final Plat for Joyce Addition. This proposed one lot industrial subdivision contains approximately .977 acres. The property is located at 912 North Iowa Street. Submitted by Grob Engineering Services, for John J. Joyce III, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Final Plat for Joyce Addition and forward it to the City Commission 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 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 Temporary Utility Agreement
Motion
carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
ITEM NO. 2A: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HANSCOM-TAPPAN III; 1511 HASKELL AVENUE (SLD)
FDP-09-06-06: Final Development Plan for Hanscom-Tappan III. The plan proposes six single-family homes on approximately one acre. The property is located on the NW corner of the intersection of Haskell Avenue and Anna Tappan Way. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Grand Builders, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Final Development Plan for Hanscom-Tappan III 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 Site Plan Performance Agreement.
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
c. Recordation at the Register of Deeds’ Office of an updated copy of the 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.
2. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to:
a. Show detectable warnings on sidewalks.
b. Show street trees along Haskell Avenue.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
ITEM NO. 2B: FINAL PLAT FOR ELAINE MARGARET ADDITION; NW CORNER OF HASKELL AVENUE AND ANNA TAPPEN WAY (SLD)
PF-09-24-06: Final Plat for Elaine Margaret Addition. The proposed six lot residential subdivision containing approximately one acre. The property is located on the NW corner of the intersection of Haskell Avenue and Anna Tappen Way. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Grand Builders, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Final Plat for Hanscom-Tappan III and forward it to 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. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of street, intersection, signal, and geometric improvements for 15th Street and Haskell Avenue.
3. Submittal of public improvement plans for the extension of sidewalks along Haskell Avenue.
Motion
carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
ITEM NO. 3: ADOPTION OF CPA-2005-05 (MJL)
PC Resolution 2006-03: Authorize Chair/Vice-Chair to sign resolution regarding CPA-2005-05.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the adoption of CPA-2005-05.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
REGULAR AGENDA (OCTOBER 23, 2006) MEETING:
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
SWEARING IN OF SPEAKERS:
Convene Joint Meeting
No members of the Eudora Planning Commission were present.
ITEM NO. 4A: A & VC TO A-1; 10 ACRES; 1273 E. 1900 ROAD (LAP)
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 item was deferred from the September Planning Commission meeting. This is a joint meeting with Eudora Planning Commission.
Items 4A and 4B were heard together.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Lisa Pool introduced item 4A, a rezoning request for Wakarusa Farm Estates. She outlined the general details of the proposal to rezone an approximately 10-acre parcel for the sale of an existing single-family residence and outbuildings.
Staff recommended approval of rezoning approximately 10 acres from the A and VC Districts to the A-1 District and forwarding it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning resolution.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the rezoning and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning resolution.
Motion carried unanimously,
10-0.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
No members of the Eudora Planning Commission were present.
ITEM NO. 4B: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WAKARUSA FARM ESTATES; 1273 E. 1900 ROAD (LAP)
PP-08-12-06: Preliminary Plat request for Wakarusa Farm Estates, located at 1273 E. 1900 Road. The proposed one lot residential subdivision containing approximately 9 acres. Submitted by David C. and Pamela W. Morrison, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the September Planning Commission meeting. This is a joint meeting with Eudora Planning Commission.
Items 4A and 4B were heard together.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Lisa Pool introduced item 4B, a preliminary plat request for Wakarusa Farm Estates. She outlined the general details of the proposal to plat an approximately 9-acre parcel for the sale of an existing single-family residence and outbuildings.
Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat for Wakarusa Farm Estates, subject to the following conditions:
1. Filing of the off-site access easement at the Register of Deed’s Office.
2. Revision of the plat to include the following:
a) Notation designating the FEMA 100-year floodplain areas as a “no build zone”.
b) Notation of the Special Flood Hazard area and Floodway area within Zone AE on the subject lot.
c) Notation stating that the construction of the shared entrance along the subject property’s southern property line is to be triggered by the submittal of a plat for the parcel of property to the south of the subject lot or redevelopment of the subject lot. With the construction of the shared entrance, the existing driveway on the subject lot is to be removed.
d) Removal of General Note #17.
e) Removal of the note “John Gage” for the property to the northwest of the subject lot.
f) Notation of the names of adjacent property owners.
g) Notation of the zoning for adjacent properties.
h) Notation stating that all existing buildings meet the setback requirements for the A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) District.
i) Notation stating that all existing buildings are to remain with the platting of this property.
j) Revision of General Note #4 to reflect the existence of the site’s single-family residence and outbuildings.
k) Addition of a 10-foot wide utility easement along the front property line.
l) Addition of the Book and Page number for the off-site access easement.
3. Revision of the conceptual plan to include the following:
a) Removal of the center drive and the addition of a shared driveway with the property to the south.
b) Notation of 75 feet of right-of-way for the western half of E 1900 Road.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
David Morrison, property owner, described how he moved here 3 years ago and purchased 10 acres south of this area. He purchased the property from the Gage family. Mr. Morrison stated that he purchased about 160 acres from Mr. Gage, but now wants to sell the existing second home on the property because he does not need two homes. He would rather sell the extra house with 10 acres rather than rent it out.
Commissioner Haase asked Mr. Gage if he was concerned with any of the Plat conditions.
Mr. Morrison replied that to his knowledge he doesn’t see any problems.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked about the 3-acre property to the North that was platted and rezoned six months ago and who did it.
Mr. Morrison stated that David Gage sold it to John Thomas, who then sold it to his sister, Sara Thomas. Sara Thomas is also planning on purchasing the subject property.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Applicant had no closing comments.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Burress inquired about item 4A including 10 acres and 4B including 9 acres.
Ms. Stogsdill replied that the rezoning is to the center of E 1900 Road and the plat does not include the road right-of-way.
Commissioner Lawson asked if shared driveways were still a viable approach.
Ms. Stogsdill advised that shared access within the right-of-way is still permitted, but the driveways must split once they are on private property.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Jennings to approve the Preliminary Plat for Wakarusa Farm Estates, subject to the conditions stated above from the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Recess joint meeting with Eudora Planning Commission
PC Minutes 10/23/06
RESUME PUBLIC HEARING
Convene joint meeting with Lecompton Planning Commission
ITEM NO. 5: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FRED’S BOAT STORAGE; 568 N 1800 ROAD (MKM)
CUP-08-07-06: Conditional Use Permit for Fred’s Boat Storage. The plan proposes construction of a 60’ x 120’ building to expand existing boat storage. The property is located at 568 N 1800 Road. Submitted by George F. Roll, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mary Miller provided a review of the original approval and the new proposed expansion. She stated that staff did not receive any negative or positive comments from neighbors.
Staff recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an additional building to expand existing boat storage and forwarding of it to the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners 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) Provision of a revised site plan to include the following changes:
a. Note added that states “All Boat Storage must be stored entirely inside the buildings.”
b. Note added that states “No non-agricultural storage is permitted outside the buildings.”
c. Note added that states “This Conditional Use Permit replaces the previous permit [CUP-10-11-02] and will be re-evaluated by the County Commission in 5 years from the approval date and will expire in 10 years from the approval date. Continuation of the use beyond that date will require rezoning or approval of a new CUP.”
d. Screening must be provided for the proposed building from the adjacent public road per Section 19-4(23) of the County Zoning Regulation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Fred Roll stated that he has had many requests from people wanting to store their boats at his boat storage facility and that he would need to build an additional building to support this growth.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Roll if in 2003 when he first requested approved of this did he only ask for one storage building.
Mr. Roll replied that yes, he just asked for one at that time.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Roll what kind of screening he would prefer doing.
Mr. Roll stated that he plans to take the dirt that is removed from the project site and build a berm.
Commissioner Burress asked which lake people use the boats at.
Mr. Roll replied that the boats are mostly used at Perry Lake and Clinton Lake.
Commissioner Harkins stated that the original building roof was turned into a sign board and asked Roll if he had any intention to use the new roof as a sign board.
Mr. Roll replied that no, he did not have any intention of painting a sign on the proposed new roof.
Commissioner Harkins stated that the Commission should not require expensive screening but that he is concerned about a sign being on the roof.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that because it is a Conditional Use Permit the Commission has the authority to restrict a sign being on the roof.
Commissioner Harkins asked Roll if he had any objections to the restriction.
Mr. Roll responded that he did not have any objections to the restriction.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
LECOMPTON PLANNING COMMISSION
Lecompton Planning Commission Chair, Jennifer Smith and Vice Chair, Jeff Robertson were present.
Lecompton Planning Commissioner Jennifer Smith stated that the Lecompton Planning Commission did not have any problems with the Conditional Use Permit request.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked Smith how she felt about the signage issue and if it was a concern.
Ms. Smith replied that she could not speak on behalf of the Lecompton Planning Commission, but that personally she would recommend the condition be added to not allow signage on the roof.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Roll stated that it was his understanding that the previous land owner had been paid by the City of Lecompton to paint a sign on one of the existing boat storage structures. He stated that if the City of Lecompton offered him a large sum of money to do the same to his new boat storage roof that he might listen to what they had to say.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Conditional Use Permit and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions as discussed:
1. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following changes:
a. Note added that states “All Boat Storage must be stored entirely inside the buildings.”
b. Note added that states “No non-agricultural storage is permitted outside the buildings.”
c. Note added that states “This Conditional Use Permit replaces the previous permit [CUP-10-11-02] and will be re-evaluated by the County Commission in 5 years from the approval date and will expire in 10 years from the approval date. Continuation of the use beyond that date will require rezoning or approval of a new CUP.”
d. Screening must be provided for the proposed building from the adjacent public road per Section 19-4(23) of the County Zoning Regulation.
2. Provide a note that states “No sign(s) will be painted or mounted on the roof of the new boat storage structure.”
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Recess joint meeting with Lecompton Planning Commission
Reconvene LDCMPC
PC Minutes 10/23/06
ITEM NO. 6: AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 3 & 5 OF THE COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS (SMS)
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.] This item was deferred from the September Planning Commission meeting.
Item 6 was deferred prior to the meeting.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
ITEM NO. 7: REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-09-09-06: Consider amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct
inconsistencies since adopted. Initiated by the Planning Commission on 9/25/06.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Joe Rexwinkle introduced the text amendment. TA-09-09-06 represents specific amendments to various articles as outlined in the Staff Report. The revisions were initiated by the Planning Commission at the September 25th meeting.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-09-09-06] to Articles 2, 5 and 9 of the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” to the City Commission.
Commissioner Harris stated that she hadn’t had a chance to read the League of Women Voters letter yet and asked if Rexwinkle could summarize it.
Mr. Rexwinkle summarized the letter that states the proposed wording change indicates that a detached garage could be completely converted to an accessory dwelling, not as an addition to but as a substitute use for a garage.
Commissioner Harris asked if parking would be eliminated.
Mr. Rexwinkle stated that if the garage is eliminated then they would not be able to use that space for parking.
Commissioner Harris inquired if the 2 off street parking spaces that are allowed include accessory dwelling.
Ms. Stogsdill stated that if the accessory dwelling unit is built on a local street built to City standards then there is no additional street parking required. She went on to say that if you read the entire section there are additional design standards that seem to indicate that a new detached accessory dwelling unit could be constructed but an owner can not convert an existing garage. It does not seem logical that you could do one and not the other. They do not have to be attached to principal house. A detached dwelling could be the accessory dwelling.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if a dwelling unit being added would double the density and if it would be an issue.
Ms. Stogsdill said that accessory dwelling units are only allowed in the RS7 or larger districts and that they are not permitted in RS3 or RS5 districts. It does allow higher density.
Commissioner Harkins asked if this situation happens very often in the city.
Stogsdill stated that this is a new provision of the new code and that there is a process that outlines the registration before someone can have an accessory dwelling. One of the two units must be owner occupied.
Commissioner Harkins inquired if this would support elderly parents in the future.
Ms. Stogsdill stated there are many different options discussed to keep homeowners in the neighborhood. It could be an elderly parent or a nanny, for example.
Commissioner Eichhorn questioned if the 960 total square feet was the total or if that meant finished square feet.
Ms. Stogsdill said no more than 960 square feet but that it could defined as net or gross square feet.
PUBLIC HEARING
Betty Lichtwardt, member of the Zoning And Codes committee, stated that it was her suggestion to add the possibility of accessory dwelling to allow the elderly to stay in the home. She went on to say that it was a concept that was not accepted by the real estate people on the committee and that the idea was to be able to incorporate a portion of the house to add an accessory dwelling. The concept of a detached garage was adopted based on the idea for areas that are supporting public transit. The buildings are designed for single families but also detached garage with an accessory dwelling on top of the garage. The idea was to make living more affordable. Lichtwardt feels that it is an interpretation over and above what does not exist in the code and that staff interpretation expands the concept. (she showed the Commissioners diagrams of example houses)
Commissioner Harkins asks Lichtwardt about the diagram showing the whole network of residences designed with a unit behind.
Ms. Lichtwardt stated that this would allow an internal dwelling above the garage.
Commissioner Erickson asked if Lichtwardt felt the location above the garage would limit the elderly from living there.
Ms. Lichtwardt stated that the definition of accessory dwelling includes a portion of an existing house to be used as a dwelling. She does not want staff to extend the definition beyond what the code says.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if Lichtwardt interpreted the code (20-534(2)(iii)(c) to have 3 separate types.
Ms. Lichtwardt said yes, A, B and C and that there is not a detached dwelling in any of the 3.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Eichhorn said that he would also like to strike the attached garage. He thinks there are a few people in the community will think this is a step too far.
Commissioner Finkeldei asked if that would require a different text amendment.
Ms. Stogsdill replied that it was for the Commission to discuss.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that he supported staff’s recommendation and thinks they are right in keeping with that idea.
Commissioner Burress posed the question of having new stand alone buildings popping up behind houses. He agreed with Lichtwardt and stated that every dwelling is either attached or detached. He also pointed out that codes would need to be written for specifications, such as how tall the dwelling could be.
Commissioner Krebs asked Burress about his opinion on the text amendment to convert an existing building and if there should be a stipulation about not building a second garage.
Commissioner Burress said that he did not think it should be allowed and that the language already allows for a garage.
Commissioner Krebs stated that there have been quite a few different interpretations of the language and that the Commission needs to discuss what they would want.
Commissioner Harkins said that he has seen hundreds of these buildings in other cities and that they are doing extremely well and that you can not tell there is a separate living area above the garage. He would be pleased if they could encourage that kind of construction in Lawrence and that the ones that are the most functional are the ones attached to the garage. He stated that they need to be extremely exact about the details because this type of thing should be done right or not done at all.
Commissioner Krebs stated that the Commission needed to come to a consensus as to what is appropriate. She recapped each issue that had been discussed thus far:
- Parking element of the garage should be retained
- Freestanding versus converted
- Can new space be constructed
Commissioner Haase said that the Commission should provide broad direction to staff and see what they can find in other cities so that the language can be well thought out. His recommendation was for staff to do more homework and report the findings to the Commission.
Ms. Stogsdill said that staff went by the language that has been drafted and that she would prefer the Commission give staff more direction. She went on to say that if the Commission does not want to see new detached accessory dwelling units then to tell staff that.
Commissioner Burress stated that he does not want freestanding detached accessory dwelling unit.
Commissioner Jennings said that older homes set on the lot where the driveway was meant to go back to the garage. In newer areas, one may not be able to do this because there would not be room for a freestanding unit.
Commissioner Eichhorn was concerned about possible abuse of the system by giving the example of Western Hills moving one house on a corner and building two more.
Commissioner Finkeldei said that he understood Commissioner Eichhorn’s concern but that they should allow detached dwelling units. He felt they should direct staff to look into design standards that tighten up standards for location of the unit.
Commissioner Harris pointed out that when a garage is taken away storage is also lost which may lead to more sheds being used for storage.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris to recommend approval of the amendment to Article 2 and defer the proposed amendment to Article 5 based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and discussion by the Planning Commission.
Motion
carried unanimously, 10-0.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
ITEM NO. 8: REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-10-10-06: Consider initiation of text amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Joe Rexwinkle introduced the text amendment. TA-10-10-06 represents specific amendments to various articles as outlined in the Staff Report.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission initiate the proposed revisions [TA-10-10-06] to the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” for public hearing at the November Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
No public comment.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Haase asked staff if this was just an initiation.
Ms. Stogsdill responded that yes, this was just an initiation in case there were public comments.
Commissioner Haase inquired if the Commission would be voting to approve the text amendment.
Ms. Stogsdill informed the Commission that they would just be initiating the text amendment for future approval.
Commissioner Haase asked why the text amendment was a public hearing item.
Commissioner Krebs stated this is upon the idea of the text to be proposed and we’ve done it this way for months
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Commissioner Finkeldei, seconded by Commissioner Harris to initiate text amendment TA-10-10-06 for future public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
PC Minutes 10/23/06
_______________________________________________________________________
MISC. ITEM NO. 1: OLD BUSINESS
Adopt 2007 Planning Commission meeting schedule.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Planning Commission stands in recess at 8:30 p.m.
Recess until 6:30 P.M. on October 25, 2006
PC Minutes 10/25/06
_____________________________________________________________
October 25, 2006 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins, Harris, Jennings, Krebs and Lawson
Staff present: Stogsdill, Ahrens, Day, Leininger, J. Miller, Warner and Brown
_____________________________________________________________
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Stogsdill outlined the following communications:
Item 10:
RS7 to RM12; Deerfield Woods
Miscellaneous
· Extension letter for Langston Heights Final Plat.
EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUEST
· No ex parte
· Commissioner Lawson abstaining from Item 9
· There were no deferral requests to consider
SWEARING IN OF SPEAKERS:
REGULAR AGENDA:
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
PC Minutes 10/25/06
ITEM NO. 9: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST 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. This item was deferred from the September Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Sandra Day introduced the Conditional Use Permit for Verizon Wireless. She described the area and noted that the subject property included an existing agricultural business – nursery sales. She identified Highway 59 and described improvements that would shift it to the east and that the private road 222 would also be realigned.
Staff recommended approval of CUP-08-06-06, a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a tower and placement of antenna and ground mounted equipment, and forwarding of it to the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised site plan to show the following:
a. Proposed landscape around the enclosure of the tower base per staff approval;
b. Dimensions of the tower from the south property line;
2. Confirmation of FAA approval to allow for proposed tower in proximity to private landing strip located at 1222 N 200 Road to the west;
3. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following notes per Section 19.4.31 (c ) (4 & 5))
a. “Any tower that is not in use for a period of three continuous years, or more, shall be removed by the owner at the owner's expense. Failure to remove the tower pursuant to non-use may result in removal and assessment of cost to the owner of the tower.”
b. “A sign shall be posted on the exterior of the fence around the base of the tower noting the name and telephone number of the tower owner and operator.”
c. “The tower owner/operator shall submit a letter to the Planning Office by July 1st of each year listing the current users and types of antenna located on the approved tower (Reference CUP-08-06-06 in the letter)”.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Curtis Holland, attorney speaking on behalf of applicant Verizon Wireless and the owners of the property. He stated that this site provides the ability to mount two different frequency antennas to service two licenses that Verizon has and provide continuous coverage through the southern area of Douglas County and further into Franklin County. He stated that it needs to be as close to the border in Douglas County as possible without encroaching on the signal from Franklin County. The location was important to be able to transition from the Douglas County system to the Franklin County system. He reviewed propagation maps with the Commission to show how the signal would be distributed along the corridor. There are no existing tower structures in the area but by building a new tower it will allow better coverage in the area. Mr. Holland said that most people are opposed to cell towers due to aesthetic reasons.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if the proposed site is at the end of a private drive.
Ms. Day replied that yes, it is located on private property. She described access to the property from Highway 59 as a private road. From the property to the site it is a driveway.
Commissioner Burress asked if there was such a thing as a tower with internal antennas and would it be possible at this site.
Mr. Holland replied that yes, there is such a thing as an internal antenna but it is not an option at this site because internal antennas only cover a small distance and the area proposed is larger than what an internal antenna would cover. He went on to say that cell towers do not have the ability to have both internal antennas and external, it has to be one way or the other.
Commissioner Burress inquired if the area could be covered with two internal antennas.
Mr. Holland replied no, it would not be possible in order to cover the entire area with just two. He asked Commissioner Burress if he wanted to know if Verizon could put up two towers with internal antennas.
Commissioner Burress responded yes.
Mr. Holland stated that yes, it would be possible but that most people do not like looking at cell towers so if they could just put up one tower it would be better.
Commissioner Burress asked staff to explain the Commission’s authority to turn this project down.
Ms. Day stated that it would be based on the finding that the location would not be appropriate for a tower and that the property is not suitable.
Commissioner Burress asked if the Commission would then have to find an alternative site.
Ms. Day responded, not necessarily, but it would have to be found by the applicant to meet their objectives. If there was a particular area that the Commission would like to direct them to that would be helpful.
Mr. Holland said that they did evaluate other properties but the property owners were not willing to lease their property to Verizon. Some would have been too close to the north and would not help in providing covering to the county line.
Commissioner Eichhorn question if Verizon had a proposed tower in Franklin County.
Mr. Holland replied no, but that the tower would allow coverage down to the county line. A tower has to be in Douglas County to satisfy the license restrictions and gap coverage.
Commissioner Eichhorn asked if Verizon could lease a current tower from another cell company.
Mr. Holland replied no, that that would not be possible.
Commissioner Krebs referenced a letter received by the Commission regarding alternative locations. She asked if Verizon could move the tower up a mile to the 59/56 Highway intersection, and use a higher frequency tower to cover Douglas County.
Mr. Holland stated that there would be a coverage gap toward the county line if Verizon did that and that potentially they could build a tower at the Highway intersection and then build another one further to the south.
Commissioner Krebs inquired about why this particular site was selected for the cell tower and why not use farm land instead.
Mr. Holland replied that the cell tower had to be within a certain site ring and that the specific site was primarily picked because it was a commercial use area.
Commissioner Harris asked if the platforms are physical platforms.
Mr. Holland responded yes, there would be two physical platforms on the monopole for the Verizon application.
PUBLIC HEARING
Leonard Koezurowicz, property owner to the south of the proposed location, stated opposition to the cell tower going up at this location. He was concerned that it will destroy property value because the tower will be 350 feet from his house and is also concerned about the noise level from the backup generator when in use or checked for maintenance. He wondered why the applicant could not move the proposed tower ½ mile to the south where it is empty farmland.
Commissioner Harkins asked the public speakers to point out their homes on a map that shows where their home is in relation to the proposed tower.
Walt Babbit, neighbor