PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION … · the Final Plat for East Hills Business Park No. Four and forwarding it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements, subject

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 1 of 27

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Meeting minutes January 2007 _____________________________________________________________ January 22, 2007 – 6:30 p.m. Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harkins, Jennings, Lawson and Student Commissioner Robb Staff present: Stogsdill, Day, M. Miller, Pool, Rexwinkle, J. Miller and Kemerling _____________________________________________________________ Vice-chair Eichhorn welcomed new KU Student Commissioner Sadie Robb. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Receive and amend or approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of December 18 and 20, 2006

ACTION TAKEN

Comm. Haase moved to approve the December minutes as written. Comm. Finkeldei seconded.

Motion was approved 6-0-2 with Comms. Jennings and Lawson in abstention.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS CDC: Comm. Erickson reported the committee held a pre-charrette meeting with two Placemakers consultants.

CPC: Comm. Erickson stated the committee discussed the Southern Development Plan.

PCCM: Comm. Eichhorn reported that the Long Range Planning Resolution was discussed.

RZO: Comm. Eichhorn said the committee discussed changes to the CUP regulations with Keith Dabney.

TAC: Comm. Finkeldei reported that the committee is working with Staff in regards to a new planner position and reworking various items was discussed.

COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Stogsdill outlined the following communications:

Item 4 o Letter from Edward Moses of KAPA in support. o Memo from Staff

Item 5 o Letter from Todd Thompson, Thompson Ramsdell & Qualseth, on behalf

of the applicant. o Memo from Staff o Meeting summary memo from Staff o Layout and Landscape Plan o Grading and Utility Plan

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 2 of 27

EX PARTE / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRAL REQUESTS There were no ex parte communications, abstentions or deferral requests indicated.

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 3 of 27

PC Minutes 1/22/07 ITEM NO. 1: FINAL PLAT FOR WAKARUSA FARM ESTATES; 1273 E 1900

ROAD (LAP) PF-12-32-06: Final Plat request for Wakarusa Farm Estates, located at 1273 E. 1900 Road. The one lot residential subdivision contains approximately 9 acres. Submitted by David C. and Pamela W. Morrison, property owners of record. ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Finkeldei, seconded by Comm. Jennings to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Wakarusa Farm Estates and forwarding it to the Board of County Commissioners for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:

1. 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. 2. Filing of the off-site access easement at the Register of Deed’s Office and

provision of the Book and Page number on the final plat. 3. Revision of the plat to include replacement of the existing share driveway note

with the following note: “The construction of the shared entrance along the property’s southern line is to be triggered by redevelopment of the parcel of property to the south of the subject lot or the subject lot. The existing driveway will be removed with the construction of the shared driveway.”

Motion carried unanimously, 8-0 as a part of the Consent Agenda, with Student Commissioner Robb also voting in the affirmative.

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 4 of 27

PC Minutes 1/22/07 ITEM NO. 2: FINAL PLAT FOR EAST HILLS BUSINESS PARK NO. FOUR;

3841 GREENWAY CIR (LAP) PF-12-33-06: Final Plat request for East Hills Business Park No. Four, located at 3841 Greenway Circle. The one lot industrial site contains approximately 12.907 acres. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for API Universal Foils Inc., property owner of record.

ACTION TAKEN Motioned by Comm. Finkeldei, seconded by Comm. Jennings to recommend approval of the Final Plat for East Hills Business Park No. Four and forwarding it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements, subject to the following conditions:

1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation: a) A current copy of a paid property tax receipt. b) An approved Master Street Tree Plan in accordance with Section 21-708a.3. c) An Agreement Not to Protest a Benefit District for Street and Sidewalk

Improvements to Noria Road. d) Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.

2. Submittal of a Temporary Utility Agreement. 3. Submittal of Public Improvement Plans for the construction of sidewalks, if the

sidewalk is placed within the right-of-way. If the sidewalks cannot be placed within the right-of-way, pedestrian easements will need to be shown on the plat.

4. Revision of the plat to include the following: a) A 10-foot wide utility easement along the north side of the lot. b) A minimum elevation for building opening (MEBO) for the lot.


PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 5 of 27

PC Minutes 1/22/07 ITEM NO. 3A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 6TH & WALNUT ADDITION; 602

WALNUT ST (JCR) PP-12-18-06: Preliminary Plat request for 6th & Walnut Addition, located at 602 Walnut Street. The three lot residential property contains approximately 2.731 acres. Submitted by Grob Engineering Services for Matthew Gilhousen, property owner of record. ACTION TAKEN Motioned by Comm. Finkeldei, seconded by Comm. Jennings to recommend approval of the 6th and Walnut Addition Preliminary Plat.


PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 6 of 27

PC Minutes 1/22/07 ITEM NO. 3B: FINAL PLAT FOR 6TH & WALNUT ADDITION; 602 WALNUT

ST (JCR) PF-12-34-06: Final Plat request for 6th & Walnut Addition, located at 602 Walnut Street. The three lot residential property contains approximately 2.731 acres. Submitted by Grob Engineering Services for Matthew Gilhousen, property owner of record. ACTION TAKEN Motioned by Comm. Finkeldei, seconded by Comm. Jennings to recommend approval of the Final Plat for 6th and Walnut Addition and forwarding it to the City Commission for acceptance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission of Public Improvement Plans showing provision of public sanitary sewer

service for Lots 2 and 3 in the event the City Commission denies the associated request for a variance from Chapter 19, Section 214 of the City Code;

2. Provision of the following fees and documentation: a. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds. b. Copy of paid tax receipt. c. Submission of Master Street Tree Plan graphic. d. Execution of an Agreement Not to Protest the formation of a Benefit District for

street and sidewalk improvements along Walnut Street. e. Execution of Use of Right-of-Way Agreement for Lot 1.


PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 7 of 27

REGULAR AGENDA (JANUARY 22, 2007) MEETING: PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: SWEARING IN OF SPEAKERS: PC Minutes 1/22/07 ITEM NO. 4: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BIG SPRINGS QUARRY; 2

NORTH 1700 ROAD (MKM) CUP-12-09-06: Conditional Use Permit for Big Springs Quarry, located at 2 North 1700 Road, Lecompton. The CUP is to only change the quarry operator to Mid-States Materials, LLC from Topeka, Kansas. Submitted by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., property owner of record. This is a joint meeting with Lecompton Planning Commission. Jennifer Smith and Jeff Robertson appeared on behalf of the Lecompton Planning Commission STAFF PRESENTATION Mary Miller, Staff, gave an introduction and overview of the request, a change in the quarry operator for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Big Springs Quarry. Ms. Miller provided the history of the quarry and outlined the previous provisions for approval. She stated Mid-States Materials, LLC currently operates four quarries in three counties. Ms. Miller contacted the planning offices for all four quarries and there were no complaint issues except for occasional issues with dust, visibility of the rock pile and turbid water discharge in Osage and Anderson Counties. The issues were resolved and no citations were filed. The quarries are in compliance and reports are filed on time with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), the State Conservation Commission, the Division of Water Resources, and the Mine Safety and Health Association (MSHA). Ms. Miller requested information from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and is waiting on a response. Ms. Miller said that Edward Moses of Kansas Aggregate Producers sent a communication in support of Mid-States request. She said the overall performance records are comparable to the current quarry operator, Martin Marietta with the exception of the length of time in business which is 4 years. Ms. Miller said there are minor compliance issues that should be resolved prior to the change in ownership and that are outlined in the memo provided in the communications packet. Staff recommended approval of permitting the transfer of ownership with the Conditional Use Permit subject to the original conditions of approval. APPLICANT PRESENTATION R.B. Miller, attorney for Martin Marietta, said that Ms. Miller was accurate in her staff report and that the company is working with Staff on the few issues that need to be resolved regarding compliance. Mr. Miller said Mid-States is a first class operation and one that will live up to their obligations. He introduced Marvin Gabb and Bob Schmidt form Martin Marietta.

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 8 of 27

John Hutton, attorney for Mid-States Material introduced the manager of Mid-States, Eric Bettis and Edward Moses of Aggregate Producers. He said Mid-States is a local (Shawnee County) company with experience in this area and noted they are looking forward to generating a substantial amount of aggregate at the Big Springs site. Jennifer Smith of the Lecompton Planning Commission questioned when the current CUP will expire. Ms. Miller replied that the CUP will be up for review in 2020. PUBLIC HEARING David Buffo, attorney for Lone Oak LLC, introduced Bart Christian of Lone Oak. Mr. Christian is the adjacent property owner. Bart Christian, Lone Oak, said his problem is with the quarry itself, not Mid-States Materials. Mr. Christian contends the quarry is impacting the Clinton watershed. He has concerns with the drainage in the area and said he has lost soil and trees due to lack of water controls. Mr. Christian stated he did not receive notice of the Planning Commission meeting and that the O’Connors, surrounding property owners, provided the letter to him. He said the O’Connors have provided correspondence regarding the quarry for previous Planning Commission meetings regarding the quarry. Mr. Christian expressed concern with the setbacks for Phase IV as his home sits very near the setback area. He said his house was built after the quarry was first permitted. Mr. Christian said the overburden pile is in the setback area and that the berms were not planted with trees every 30 feet, as they should have been which allowed for runoff. He would like to see Martin Marietta fix the existing issues prior to transitioning to Mid-States. Comm. Burress asked if the runoff Mr. Christian noticed was from one side of the berm into the road. Mr. Christian stated the berm was not seeded and did not have filter fencing. He said the water was runoff from the berm itself. Comm. Finkeldei asked if Mr. Christian has raised these issues with KDHE or the County and if any new information was presented to the Planning Commission that had not been given to these offices. Mr. Christian said he had contacted the KDHE several times and Martin Marietta was given guidelines on what they needed to do. He said that Martin Marietta has all of the information. Comm. Harkins asked how many agencies have regulatory authority over the Big Springs Quarry and if Staff was satisfied the seller would comply with all conditions prior to sale of the quarry. Ms. Miller stated that she believed there were four which were named in the Staff Report. She said that compliance with the conditions is necessary for approval and that Keith Dabney would be supervising the compliance.

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 9 of 27

Comm. Burress asked Mr. Christian if he believed any new conditions were necessary or if he felt the original conditions were adequate if enforced. Mr. Christian stated that the groundwater issues were concerning. He said the earlier phases were not controlled and he does not feel the later phases will be controlled either. He questioned whether water would be rerouted by the quarry and whether his water would be impacted. Comm. Burress asked staff if they would agree that three additional conditions including a new hydrology study, a new 400 foot setback and stronger limits on runoffs are needed. Ms. Stogsdill asked for time to review the existing CUP conditions. Comm. Lawson asked Mr. Christian when he purchased his property and whether he was aware a quarry existed at the time. Mr. Christian replied that he signed the contract on his property in December of 2002 and was aware of the quarry but it was not in production. Comm. Lawson asked where a prospective property owner would find out about a quarry and how they would be able to see the existing conditions. Ms. Stogsdill said contacting the Planning Office and asking to review the file would be appropriate. She said the setbacks for the quarry along the different phases were originally determined based on where the existing homes were located in 1990 and they were reaffirmed in 1992. Wider setbacks were stipulated on the southern phases due to the existence of homes in that area. APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS R.B. Miller stated the issue in front of the Planning Commission is the handoff of the quarry from Martin Marietta to Mid-States Material. He said that Mr. Christian raised issues that have nothing to do with the application and what is being asked of the Commission. The quarry has been in compliance with no citations issued. Mr. Christian filed numerous complaints with KDHE and anything they found was immediately rectified. Mr. Miller said the same issues are being raised again and again and there is a multi-million dollar claim currently in litigation and will be heard next year in federal court. Mr. Miller deferred to Mr. Marvin Gabb regarding setback questions pertaining to blasting. Marvin Gabb, Martin Marietta, said the setback is for blasting and the operators of the quarry can blast right up to the corner of the setback. He stated that Martin Marietta built Mr. Christian’s pond for the original land owners and cares about what happens to the water in the area. Comm. Haase asked Mr. Gabb about the allegation that rocks are thrown 400 feet from the quarry during blasting.

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 10 of 27

Mr. Gabb replied that nothing has been substantiated and that he has never seen it happen. The quarry has never been cited for improper blasting. Comm. Haase asked if the runoff from the quarry was subject to NPDES regulations. Mr. Gabb said yes, any water issue is regulated by the KDHE and the quarry’s history is a matter of record. Ms. Stogsdill stated the conditions contained in the original CUP included a hydrologic study which occurred at the beginning of quarrying to determine the effects of the quarrying per phase. The condition could be read to require a study with each phase of quarrying. Condition 10 requires a drainage study. The study has been submitted for Phase II and Martin Marrietta will provide a stamped copy of the study. Setbacks for the quarry were based on where residences were located at the time of the original CUP. Mr. Christian’s property would be adjacent to a setback for Phase IV; the Planning Commission may not have the authority to impose a new setback. Comm. Burress said that the original CUP states that the Planning Commission will reopen the CUP and review the conditions if there is a prospective new owner. He asked if the CUP is being reviewed as a new CUP or as a CUP already in existence. Ms. Stogsdill replied that the condition was put in place in part because the issuance was based on Martin Marietta’s proven record. At the time, the Commission felt it was important that there be some type of review but it is not looked at the same as a new quarry. Comm. Burress asked if the review is based on the reputation of the new owner and if the CUP should be reissued unless there are overwhelming reasons not to reissue it. Ms. Stogsdill said if the Planning Commission believes the Staff can certify that the operator is complying with the current conditions and that the conditions are sufficient and reasonable, that would be a logical first step to reissuance of the CUP. Comm. Eichhorn stated the CUP can be revoked by the County at any time if the operator is not in compliance. Ms. Stogsdill said she did not feel comfortable with Staff recommending more conditions than are on the current CUP. Jeff Robertson, Vice Chair of the Lecompton Planning Commission, said that as long as the site has been viewed by Staff and they have verified that the quarry is in compliance, Lecompton recommends approval. Comm. Harkins stated he does not recommend adding additional requirements. The recommendation from Staff is to approve the CUP subject to certification by the Planning and County staff that the quarry is in full compliance. The Planning Commission is not an environmental regulatory body, there is a lawsuit dealing with the issues raised and it is beyond the Planning Commissions jurisdiction.

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 11 of 27

ACTION TAKEN Moved by Comm. Harkins, seconded by Comm. Lawson, to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Big Springs Quarry and forwarding of it to the County Commission with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report and subject to the previously approved restrictions of use and DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION Comm. Haase suggested asking the Lecompton Planning Commission members for their vote. Comm. Lawson said the two Lecompton Planning Commission members present did not indicate a reluctance to be supportive. Ms. Smith stated that two members do not represent a quorum for a vote but the Lecompton Planning Commission did discuss the CUP at their last meeting. The group was in support of the CUP with the current conditions. Comm. Lawson asked if the quarry will have to go through a similar process for approval in Shawnee County and if so, if the process is underway. Mr. Hutton stated that Shawnee County requires approval by the County Commission but not the Planning Commission. He said the request for approval has been made but not completed. Comm. Burress said he supported the motion but urged the County Commission to investigate a condition for additional setbacks to accommodate houses built after the original CUP was in existence. He said the existence of the federal court case by Lone Oak is irrelevant. Comm. Burress stated the concurrent regulation by other governing bodies has some relevance and provides some evidence that something serious has not occurred although the evidence is not conclusive. He continued that the responsibility to look at the environmental impact is not absolved simply because others are looking at it. He did not feel that there were any overwhelmingly strong reasons for the CUP to be revoked. ACTION TAKEN The motion on the floor was to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Big Springs Quarry and forwarding of it to the County Commission with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report and subject to the previously approved restrictions of use.

Motion passed unanimously, 8-0. Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.

Reconvene L-DCMPC

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 12 of 27

PC Minutes 1/22/07 ITEM NO. 5: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ABERDEEN ON

6TH (SLD) Reconsideration of Planning Commission recommendations for PDP-01-02-06: Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6th Street. This proposed multi-family planned residential development contains 108 proposed apartment units and including four duplex units on approximately 9.59 acres. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of W. 6th Street and Stoneridge Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for MS Construction Co., Inc., property owners for record. On 12/12/06, the City Commission referred this to the Planning Commission to reconsider their recommendation. STAFF PRESENTATION Sandra Day gave an introduction and overview of the project, a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) for Aberdeen on 6th. She outlined the progress of the project which was approved 9-1 by the Planning Commission in November of 2006 and forwarded to the City Commission. The City Commission met on 12/12/06 and returned the PDP to the Planning Commission with recommendations to reconsider their vote. Ms. Day provided a summary of actions and votes with the various recommendations and options. She stated that Planning Commission received communications regarding this item including the Staff Memo, the alternative plan submitted by the applicant and a summary of the meeting minutes. Ms. Day stated the alternative plan is not being submitted for formal review as Staff has not had the opportunity to study it extensively. She said the continued discussion regarding controlled access with some type of emergency gate is not included in any of the revised plans but is an existing recommended condition of approval. Controlled access will be a requirement for the applicant. The applicant’s intent with the revised plan is to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to provide revised conditions on the concept of the alternative plan, if appropriate. Comm. Harkins asked if staff was prepared to give formal recommendations on the plan prior to the Planning Commission vote. Ms. Day stated that Staff has not had the opportunity to provide recommendations on the alternative plan and that if necessary, conditions could be created as the discussion progressed. Comm. Eichhorn stated the only way he would feel comfortable is to have Staff recommendations regarding the revisions prior to the vote. Ms. Day referred the Commission to the City Commission minutes contained within the Staff memo and referenced pages 6-7 and 8-9 where the City Commission speaks to the changes they would be comfortable seeing but did not want to revise at the City Commission level. The City Commission did not question density or the concept of multi-family use. Comm. Hack spoke to the project as being infill. The City Commission

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 13 of 27

did not express concerns regarding stormwater or of Winthrop Court access being a condition. Comm. Highberger stated multifamily is the best use but hoped for a better transition from single to multi-family. The City Commission asked for a scaling down of buildings that immediately abutted the single family homes. Comm. Schauner expressed concerns about the structures on the southern piece of the property. The City Commission suggested more density on the northern end of the property and larger landscaping. Ms. Day said the ultimate question is if the alternative design presented this evening meets the City Commission criteria. Comm. Eichhorn asked if the revised plan meets the conditions discussed by the City Commission. Ms. Day said that the plan does meet the majority of the City Commission recommendations. Comm. Harkins asked about the procedure for this project and noted that the project has been back and forth between Planning and City Commissions with a great deal of time and money spent. He said the changes presented seem substantial; Staff has not had the opportunity to review them and does not have a recommendation. He expressed feeling uncomfortable about making a decision to recommend or not recommend the plan without Staff input. Comm. Harkins stated he voted for the project initially but does not like the idea of taking a short cut in the approval unless there is a compelling reason. Comm. Eichhorn asked if the changes are major or minor. He said he would like to see whether the new plan meets with better acceptance by both Commissions and feels it appropriate to continue with discussions if the changes are minor. Ms. Day said the number of dwelling units is the same and there is an increase in open space. The building mass for the units on the western side of the property are smaller. She said there is record of public and neighborhood input but Staff does not know what the official thoughts or comments are regarding this plan from the neighborhood. Ms. Day said this is a valid attempt to respond to the City Commission concerns. Comm. Jennings stated that this is an official agenda item and the Planning Commission has the option of not acting on it. Comm. Finkeldei commented that there are three possible options:

1. Not act on the new proposal which would send the previous plan back to the City Commission.

2. Send the previous plan back to the City Commission with no changes. 3. Send the plan back to the City Commission with recommended changes.

Comm. Finkeldei said as the City Commission sent the previous plan back, he believes the Planning Commission should hear this new plan and give input before forwarding to the City Commission. Comm. Harkins stated his belief that the Planning Commission should hold off hearing about the revised plan until Staff is able to give recommendations on the changes.

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 14 of 27

Comm. Burress asked the applicant’s opinion regarding holding the vote for a month. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Todd Thompson, attorney for the applicant, stated the visual representation submitted to the Planning Commission is not a plan that was submitted to the Planning Commission for review. The original plan is being submitted with changes pertaining to the mass and size of the buildings. He said the City Commission did not vote to reject the plan but wanted to change a few things along the southern property line. Mr. Thompson said the only reason the picture was presented was as a communication tool to visually explain the steps that have been taken to modify the plan. He said the buildings are smaller which increases green space but are generally in the same location. There are three small buildings on the south as opposed to two large buildings. The building near the Lange house is smaller and placed further from Mr. Lange’s property line. Density of the project has been moved closer to 6th Street and the densest part of the project is on the north 2/3 of the project. The swimming pool has east/west access. Mr. Thompson said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project last time as did Staff. The gate is a non-issue; if the City Commission tells the applicant to put in a gate, it will be put in. The request before the Planning Commission is to recommend approval with the same conditions as the previous plan plus one more that the buildings on the southern edge be modified in accordance with the drawing. Comm. Finkeldei asked why the orientation of the four-plexes on the far east of the project changed. Mr. Thompson replied that the garages were removed from the front of the duplexes. The applicant believes having one bedroom units is less intrusive to the neighborhood than having three bedroom duplexes. PUBLIC HEARING Price Banks, attorney working with the neighbors, stated that this is a unique situation. He said the applicant should be given a pat on the back for working with the neighbors and the City Commission to address concerns. The one bedroom four-plexes will lower density considerably. The changes, while not substantial, are effective in changing the appearance of the project to the neighbors. The gate is important to the neighbors who also understand the importance of the gate for emergency access. Mr. Banks said the neighbors would like the landscaping to be very dense on the south side of the project and request that is a condition to be added to the Final Development Plan (FDP). He is pleased the neighbors and the applicant have been able to reach an agreement and would like to see the Planning Commission recommend approval of the PDP. Cory Lange, 901 Stone Creek, said the revisions to the plan are a step in the right direction. The gate has been a huge issue. He said he is concerned the gate will become a parking area and would like to see some sort of wall built as a deterrent. He would like to see the density of the landscaping as a condition on the FDP. He agreed with all of the changes. Mr. Lange said the drawing of the landscaping shows mature trees, 20 years or so in the future. He would like a very dense landscaping plan in the “Tuckaway” style.

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 15 of 27

Mark O’Lear, 917 Stone Creek, said he appreciates what Mr. Werner has done to accommodate the neighbors’ requests. He stated he would like to see the gate on the plan and that all of the neighbors would like both the gate and denser landscaping. APPLICANT CLOSING Mr. Thompson said the applicant would provide the project layout and landscaping plan, the grading, utility and elevation plans to the City Commission. He clarified that the landscaping would be denser on the southern berm as well as the northern area of the project. Comm. Burress asked if the treatment chosen for the gate and the potential wall for the gate, if made a condition, would go on the plan being forwarded to the City Commission or if it would appear on the FDP. Mr. Thompson replied that those details would appear as part of the FDP. STAFF CLOSING Ms. Day asked for approval of the PDP with the original 5 conditions and a revised PDP to show a restricted gate per City fire and public works staff approval. The gate should provide emergency access only and detail of that access restriction would be show as part of the FDP submission. The PDP will be revised to match the alternative plan drawing dated 1/19/07. ACTION TAKEN Moved by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Finkeldei, to recommend approval of the revised Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on Sixth based in part on the Staff Report and on new evidence brought forth to address concerns of the City Commission and two additional conditions and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to show a restricted gate along

Winthrop Court per City Fire and Public Works staff approval. 2. Provision of a note that states access gate shall be for emergency purposes only.

General vehicular access immediately to Stonecreek Drive from the development shall be prohibited.

3. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for intersection and geometric improvements to W. 6th Street and Stoneridge Drive.

4. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan that shows installation of larger size (10 gallon minimum size) planting along the south side of the development for lots that abut Stonecreek Drive per staff approval.

5. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that states: “The Final Development Plan shall include specific building elevations that note building materials to be used for roof, siding, and facing elements visible from the public streets and viewable from abutting properties.”

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 16 of 27

6. Detail of the access gate will be shown on submission of the Final Development

Plan; 7. The Preliminary Development Plan will be revised to reflect the layout as shown on

the alternative plan dated 1/19/07.


PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 17 of 27

PC Minutes 1/22/07 ITEM NO. 6: AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 3 & 5, 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.]

Item 6 was deferred prior to the start of the meeting.

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 18 of 27

PC Minutes 1/22/07 ITEM NO. 7: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE 7 SUBDIVISION

REGULATIONS (SMS) TA-11-13-06: Consider amendments to Chapter 20, Article 7 Subdivision Regulations to correct and clarify the proposed regulations. Initiated by the Planning Commission at their November meeting. Item 7 was deferred prior to the start of the meeting.

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 19 of 27

PC Minutes 1/22/07 ITEM NO. 8: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE

(JCR) TA-10-11B-06: Consider amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted. Initiated by the Planning Commission at their December meeting. Deferred from the December Planning Commission meeting. Item 8 was withdrawn prior to the start of the meeting.

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 20 of 27

PC Minutes 1/22/07 ITEM NO. 9: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE

(JCR) TA-12-14-06: Consider amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted. Initiated by the Planning Commission at their December meeting. STAFF PRESENTATION Joe Rexwinkle gave an introduction and overview of the amendments to Chapter 20 of the Development Code which would make the Code consistent with state law and provide for the following revisions:

Pg. No.

Section No. 20 -

Recommended Text Change

Unknown Unknown EXPLORE METHODS TO PERMIT TEMPORARY USES/EVENTS FOR NON-PROFIT AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS (Initiated: September 2006 with TA-09-09-06)

Legal Services is continuing to study this issue.

Article 1. Introductory Provisions Article 2. Base Districts Article 3. Overlay Zoning Districts Article 4. Use Table 4-11 403 AMEND NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICT USE TABLE TO ADD EXTERIOR STORAGE AS A

PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE (WITH STANDARDS) TO THE CN2, CC, CR, CS, IBP, IL, IG, GPI AND H DISTRICTS (Initiated: September 2006 with TA-09-09-06)

Staff is continuing to study this issue. Language for this provision is being drafted and tested for accuracy and applicability prior to adoption. (Related to amendment to add Sec. 538 and to 1006(c))

4-12 403 AMEND NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICT USE TABLE TO REFLECT CHANGES APPLICABLE TO SMALL COLLECTION RECYCLING FACILITIES DUE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REGULATIONS PROPOSED (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-12-14-06) A staff subcommittee is being formed to study this and propose new language. Staff is continuing to work on this. (Related to amendment to Section 540 below)

Article 5. Use Regulations 5-30 534(2)(iii) METHODS OF CREATION OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT BY CONVERTING AN ATTACHED

GARAGE (Initiated: September 2006 with TA-09-09-06)

This item had public hearing at the October 23 Planning Commission meeting. The Commission deferred the particular amendment and

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 21 of 27

directed staff to research the subject and come back to the Planning Commission at a later date with revised language and research results. Staff is continuing to study this issue.

5-38 538 ADD SECTION 538 TO ARTICLE 5 USE REGULATIONS THAT PROVIDES THE STANDARDS WHICH APPLY TO EXTERIOR STORAGE, AN ACCESSORY USE (WITH STANDARDS) PERMITTED IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS (SEE TABLE ABOVE) (Initiated: September 2006 with TA-09-09-06)

Staff is continuing to study this issue. Language for this provision is being drafted and tested for accuracy and applicability prior to adoption. (Related to Amendment to add Sec. 403 and to 1006(c))

5-38 540 ADD USE REGULATIONS FOR SMALL COLLECTION RECYCLING FACILITIES (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-12-14-06)

A staff subcommittee is being formed to study this and propose new regulations. Staff is continuing to work on this. (Related to amendment to Section 403 above)

Article 6. Density and Dimensional Standards 6-2 601(a) REFERENCE TO [4] IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL

STANDARDS TABLE SEEMS UNCLEAR (Initiated: November 2006 with TA-10-11-06)

The footnote [4] states “Applies only to Lots platted after the Effective Date.” It does not direct us where to look for lots platted before the effective date. Must be clarified. Staff is continuing to work on this.

6-2 601(b) AMEND TABLE [1] MINIMUM SETBACKS IN THE DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS TABLE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO ADD MINIMUM SETBACKS FOR THE IBP, IL, AND IG DISTRICTS LOCATED ALONG LOCAL STREETS (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-12-14-06)

See table below.

6-2 601(b) REFERENCE TO [5] IN THE NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL

STANDARDS TABLE SEEMS UNCLEAR (INITIATED: NOVEMBER 2006 WITH TA-10-11-06)

The footnote [5] states “Applies only to Lots platted after the Effective Date.” It does not direct us where to look for lots platted before the effective date. Must be clarified. Staff is continuing to work on this.

6-7 602(e)(6) ADD AN EXCEPTION ALLOWING SIGNS TO BE LOCATED IN REQUIRED YARDS AND SETBACKS

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 22 of 27

(INITIATED: DECEMBER 2006 WITH TA-12-14-06)

Staff is continuing to work on this.

Article 7. Planned Development Districts Article 8.Subdivision Design and Improvement Regulations <<Reserved>> Article 9. Parking, Loading and Access Unknown Unknown CLARIFY WHERE BOATS, MOTOR HOMES AND CAMPERS CAN BE LOCATED IN RESIDENTIAL

DISTRICTS. (Initiated: July 2006 with TA-06-04-06)

Staff is continuing to work on this issue.

9-18 915 CLARIFY WHAT USES TO WHICH DRIVEWAY AND ACCESS STANDARDS APPLY (Initiated: December 2006 with TA-12-14-06)

A staff subcommittee is being formed to study this issue and propose new language. Staff is continuing to work on this.

Article 10. Landscaping and Screening 10-9 1006(c) ADD SUBSECTION C TO THE ADDITIONAL SCREENING REQUIREMENTS SECTION TO PROVIDE

LANGUAGE FOR THE SCREENING OF EXTERIOR STORAGE (RELATED TO AMENDMENTS IN ARTICLES 4 AND 5 DISCUSSED ABOVED) (Initiated: October 2006 with TA-10-10-06)

Staff is continuing to study this issue. Language for this provision is being drafted and tested for accuracy and applicability prior to adoption. (Related to Amendment to add Sec. 403 and to 538)

Article 11. General Development Standards Article 12. Floodplain Management Regulations Article 13. Development Review Procedures Article 14. Boards and Commissions Article 15. Nonconformities Article 16. Violations, Penalties and Enforcement Article 17. Terminology 17-6 1701 REVISE THE DEFINITION OF EXTENDED CARE FACILITY, GENERAL

(Initiated: December, 2006 with TA-12-14-06)

Definition modified for consistency with state law. See table below

17-7 1701 REVISE THE DEFINITION OF EXTENDED CARE FACILITY, LIMITED (Initiated: December, 2006 with TA-12-14-06)


PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 23 of 27

Extended Care Facility (Dependent Living or Nursing Care Facility), General

A long term facility or a distinct part of an institution occupied by nine (9) or more persons with a disability who require the provision of health care services under medical supervision for twenty-four (24) or more consecutive hours and who need not be related by blood or marriage. An Extended Care Facility must be licensed by one (1) or more of the following regulatory agencies of the State: Department of Social and Healing Arts, Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board, State Board of Healing Arts, or Kansas Department on Aging. Disability means, with respect to a person: (a) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one (1) or more of such person’s major life activities; (b) a record of having such impairment; or (c) being regarded as having such impairment. Such term does not include current illegal use or addiction to a controlled substance, as defined in Sec. 102 of the Controlled Substance Act (21U.S.C.802). Extended Care Facilities include facilities for the provision of skilled nursing care, hospice care and similar services.

Extended Care Facility (Dependent Living or Nursing Care Facility), Limited

A long term facility or a distinct part of an institution occupied by not more than ten (10) persons, including eight (8) or fewer persons with a disability who need not be related by blood or marriage, and who require the provision of health care services under medical supervision for twenty-four (24) or more consecutive hours, and also not to be occupied by more than two (2) staff residents who need not be related by blood or marriage to each other or to other residents of the home. An Extended Care Facility must be licensed by one (1) or more of the following regulatory agencies of the State: Department of Social and Healing Arts, Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board, State Board of Healing Arts, or Kansas Department on Aging. Disability means, with respect to a person: (a) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one (1) or more of such person’s major life activities; (b) a record of having such impairment; or (c) being regarded as having such impairment. Such term does not include current illegal use or addiction to a controlled substance, as defined in Sec. 102 of the Controlled Substance Act (21U.S.C.802). Extended Care Facilities include facilities for the provision of skilled nursing care, hospice care and similar services.

17-8 1701 REVISE THE DEFINITION OF GROUP HOME, GENERAL

(Initiated: December, 2006 with TA-12-14-06)


17-8 1701 REVISE THE DEFINITION OF GROUP HOME, LIMITED (Initiated: December, 2006 with TA-12-14-06)


PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 24 of 27

ACTION TAKEN Moved by Comm. Finkeldei, seconded by Comm. Haase, to recommend forwarding a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-12-14-06] to Article 17 of the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” to the City Commission.


*Group Home (or Adult Care Home), General

Any Dwelling occupied by 11 or more persons, including eight (8) or more persons with a disability who need not be related by blood or marriage and staff residents who need not be related by blood or marriage to each other or to other residents of the home. The Dwelling is licensed by one (1) or more of the following regulatory agencies of the State: Dept. of Social and Healing Arts, Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board, or State Board of Healing Arts. Disability means, with respect to a person: (a) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one (1) or more of such person’s major life activities; (b) a record of having such impairment; or (c) being regarded as having such impairment. Such term does not include current illegal use or addiction to a controlled substance, as defined in Sec. 102 of the Controlled Substance Act (21U.S.C.802). A Special Use Permit is required before operation of the home can begin.

Group Home (or Adult Care Home), Limited

Any Dwelling occupied by not more than ten (10) persons, including eight (8) or fewer persons with a disability who need not be related by blood or marriage and not to exceed two (2) staff residents who need not be related by blood or marriage to each other or to other residents of the home. The Dwelling is licensed by one (1) or more of the following regulatory agencies of the State: Dept. of Social and Healing Arts, Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board, or State Board of Healing Arts. Disability means, with respect to a person: (a) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one (1) or more of such person’s major life activities; (b) a record of having such impairment; or (c) being regarded as having such impairment. Such term does not include current illegal use or addiction to a controlled substance, as defined in Sec. 102 of the Controlled Substance Act (21U.S.C.802).

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 25 of 27

PC Minutes 1/22/07 ITEM NO. 10: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR) TA-01-01-07: Consider initiation of text amendments to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted. STAFF PRESENTATION Joe Rexwinkle gave an introduction and overview of the initiation of a text amendment to Chapter 20 of the Development Code. ACTION TAKEN Moved by Comm. Finkeldei, seconded by Comm. Haase, to recommend initiating the proposed revisions [TA-01-01-07] to the “Development Code, July 1, 2006 Edition,” for public hearing for a future Planning Commission meeting. A brief explanation of the changes appear in the following table in SMALL CAPS. Pg. No.

Section No. 20 -

Recommended Text Change

Article 1. Introductory Provisions Article 2. Base Districts Article 3. Overlay Zoning Districts Article 4. Use Table Article 5. Use Regulations Article 6. Density and Dimensional Standards 6-1 601(a) REVISE THE MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE AND MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR LOTS IN THE

RM24 DISTRICT

The Minimum Lot Width is less than the Minimum Lot Frontage. This must be corrected so that the lot width is either the same as or greater than the lot frontage requirements.

6-6 602(e)(6)(vii) REVISE THIS SECTION SO THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH NEW BUILDING CODES

New Building Codes contain information that conflicts with this section in regards to swimming pools.

Article 7. Planned Development Districts Article 8.Subdivision Design and Improvement Regulations <<Reserved>> Article 9. Parking, Loading and Access Article 10. Landscaping and Screening Article 11. General Development Standards Article 12. Floodplain Management Regulations Article 13. Development Review Procedures Article 14. Boards and Commissions Article 15. Nonconformities Article 16. Violations, Penalties and Enforcement Article 17. Terminology

PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 26 of 27


PC Minutes 1/22/07

Page 27 of 27

MISCELLANEOUS NEW OR OLD BUSINESS PC Minutes 1/22/07 MISC. ITEM NO. 1: Discussion of future Mid-month topics. Ms. Stogsdill asked that the Planning Commission set topics for their future mid-month meetings. The Long Range Planning Resolution items were referred to the Planning Commission by the City Commission. Ms. Stogsdill suggested placing the item on the mid-month agenda or the February regular agenda. Comm. Eichhorn indicated he did not want the Long Range Planning Resolution on the March agenda. Comm. Harkins said the February Planning Commission meeting would be the natural time to hear the item as the intent is to have a public hearing and he feels the mid-month could be restrictive. Comm. Burress stated that people do not have the habit of thinking there will a public hearing at the mid-month meeting and may not attend. Ms. Stogsdill suggested future mid-month topics may be a follow-up of ECO2, MPO role and training, training on the TIP and UPWP. Comm. Eichhorn asked if the Planning Commissioners should suggest future mid-month topics. Ms. Stogsdill replied in the affirmative and said that as Staff will be attending the PlaceMakers charrette the week prior to the February 14 mid-month meeting, the topic for February will need to be decided soon. Comm. Eichhorn suggested discussing the sector plan status. Comm. Burress asked the status of the Retail Impact Studies with the City Commission. Ms. Stogsdill said that the Development Code was approved in April with language proposed by consultants regarding the Retail Impact Studies. There is a draft of a Retail Impact Study Text Amendment which has been deferred by the City Commission and has not been place back on the agenda. Adjourn 8:35 p.m.

Documents

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION … · the Final Plat for East Hills Business Park No. Four and forwarding it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements, subject