Meeting Information
-Convene
-Pledge of Allegiance
CONSENT AGENDA
(1) (a) Consider approval of Commission Orders
(b) Approval for <1/2xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Kansas Community Corrections Act FY 05 Quarterly Summary
Budget Report Adjustment (Ron Stegall)
REGULAR AGENDA
(2) Planning Items:
(a) Z-04-30-05: Request to rezone a tract of land approximately 34.35 acres from A (Agricultural) District to B-2 (General Business) District. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of Highways 56 and 59. Submitted by Joseph Daniels, Jr., for Joseph Daniels, Sr., property owner of record. (Paul Patterson)
(b) TA-06-01-05: Consider text amendment to Article 26 of the County Zoning Regulations to provide consistency between building codes and zoning regulations concerning building permit time limits and fees (Linda Finger)
(c) CPA-2005-04: Consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Horizon 2020, which proposed to incorporate in to the plan a new chapter pertaining specifically to rural planning and development of the unincorporated areas of Douglas County. This draft chapter has been prepared by members of the Rural Planning Committee (RPC), a subcommittee appointed by the Chair of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission. This item was initiated by the Planning Commission at their June meeting. The draft chapter and other associated background documents relat
Jones called the meeting to order at 8:31 A.M. on Monday, August 22, 2005 with all members present. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
CONSENT AGENDA 08-22-05
Johnson moved approval of the following Consent Agenda:
- Note receipt of fee reports for the month of June 2005; and
- Approve Kansas Community Corrections Act FY 05 Quarterly Summary Budget Report Adjustment
Motion was seconded by Jones and carried unanimously.
PLANNING 08-22-05
The Board considered Item No. 9 of the minutes of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission dated July 27, 2005. This item is Z-04-30-05: a request to rezone a tract of land approximately 34.35 acres from A (Agricultural) District to B-2 (General Business) District. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of Highway 56 and 59. Submitted by Joseph Daniels, Jr., for Joseph Daniels, Sr., property owner of record. Paul Patterson, staff member of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, presented this item. This item comes to the Board with a unanimous recommendation for denial noting concerns about the amount of the area requested for rezoning, the timing, and the need for a better nodal plan. Patterson noted that staff recommended approval of the request based on the following Findings of Fact:
Zoning and uses of property nearby. The properties at the existing intersection of Highway 56 and 59 are within a B-2 (General Business) Zoning District. This property and the property to the east and south are zoned A (Agricultural) District and are in agricultural uses.
Character of the area. Land uses surrounding the subject property consist of agricultural uses, residences, and a variety of commercial uses.
Suitability of subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted.The subject property is located outside of the recently expanded Lawrence Urban Growth Area. It is also beyond the Baldwin City Growth Area and approximately 3.3 miles from Baldwin City Limits. The subject property is within an A (Agricultural) District zoned property and is adjacent to a B-2 (General Commercial) zoned commercial node at the intersection to the north and west (Baldwin Junction). The Kansas Department of Transportation has proposed improvements to the intersection which will cover a portion of the area requested to be rezoned.
Length of time subject property has remained vacant as zoned. The subject property is primarily used for agricultural crop production, and has been zoned A (Agricultural) District since 1966.
Extent to which removal of restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property. Based on the proposed realignment and construction of the U.S. 56/59 interchange and the loss of commercially zoned land, it would appear appropriate to rezone a portion of the subject property from A (Agricultural) District to B-2 (General Commercial) District zoning.
Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare by the destruction of the value of the petitioner's property as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual landowners. It appears logical to extend commercial uses beyond the existing commercial corridor at the intersection of U.S. 59/56. The proposed construction of a highway interchange at this intersection will provide a relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare, but will take up a large portion of the existing commercially zoned property through the purchase of public right-of-way. A rezoning should result in a benefit to the motoring public and residents in the area through the convenient location of commercial services. Rezoning and future commercial uses in this area should be carefully designed and controlled to minimize undesired impact upon the surrounding A (Agricultural) District zoned land.
Conformance with The Comprehensive Plan. Once realigned and a highway interchange is constructed, the subject property will adjoin the intersection. Therefore, the rezoning request is consistent with the goals and policies of Horizon 2020 for both existing and proposed commercial nodes in the unincorporated areas of Douglas County.
Johnson noted that when the Commercial Chapter was approved, this area was identified as a node and the allowable commercial area was increased from 7500 square feet to 15,000 square feet which indicates we were thinking this would be a commercial area.
Jones questioned whether the neighboring property owners understood the impact this rezoning could have on the potential development of their property.
Patterson stated that would be speculation on his part.
Joseph Daniels, Jr., applicant, presented a copy of a map provided to him by KDOT. Daniels explained that he was asking to rezone the entire piece of ground that his father purchased in the 1980s. Daniels noted that in 1990, approval had been received for B-3 zoning for a two-acre tract, but had expired because a plat had never been submitted. In light of the fact that KDOT will be improving the highway and businesses will need to be relocated, this is an opportune time to rezone the property. Daniels' original request was to rezone it to B-3 zoning, but after discussing it with Planning Staff, they came to the conclusion that B-2 zoning would be more appropriate since it would meet the basic needs of the Comprehensive Plan.
Daniels stated he did not agree with comments made by Planning Commissioner John Haase expressing his concern that approving the rezoning would increase the cost of their purchase for right-of-way for Highway 59 improvements.
Jones asked if they would ask more for the property if the rezoning was approved.
Daniels responded that they would make no commitment either way -- they are concerned about the access of the property to customers.
Jones asked why they wouldn't wait until KDOT's plans are final to decide what to do with the property.
Daniels stated that they would like to have a plan in place where the only thing that needs to be done is file the plat. It would be more of an incentive for a business to move over a few yards. Daniels also noted that both neighboring property owners were supportive of this request.
Jones asked for public comment.
Dorthea Jackson, Baldwin, Kansas, stated she believed that businesses are critical to this area.
Jones stated that he didn't like the idea of rezoning the land. He would support a request to rezone after the highway improvements have been made so there is a clear picture of the entire development. He believed it would be irresponsible to go ahead and redevelop the land. Jones also stated that he has a hard time voting against a unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Johnson stated he also did not like to vote against the Planning Commission's recommendation. However, it is not consistent that staff recommends approval, the public is supportive, and the Planning Commission unanimously votes against it.
McElhaney made a motion to approve the rezoning request (Z-04-30-05) based on the above Findings of Fact and subject to the following conditions:
- Property owner agrees to annex the subject property into the Baldwin City Limits when it becomes contiguous with Baldwin City Limits; and
- Approval and filing of a final plat at the Register of Deeds Office.
Sandra Day, staff member of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, advised the Board that if they take action overturning the Planning Commission's decision, it should either be a unanimous vote with findings established, or direct the item back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration to return to the County Commission at which time the County Commission could vote on it with a super majority.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Johnson then made a motion to return this request to the Planning Commission for further consideration and recommendation. Motion was seconded by Jones and carried unanimously.
PLANNING 08-22-05
The Board considered Item No. 14 of the minutes of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission dated July 27, 2005. This item is TA-06-01-05: Consider text amendment to the County Zoning Regulations (Article 26) regarding building permit fees, building permit expiration, and elimination of conflict between zoning regulations and adopted building codes. This item was initiated by the Board of County Commissioners at their April 25, 2005 meeting. Sandra Day, staff member of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, explained that this is a text amendment brought about as a result of discrepancies between specifications in the Douglas County Zoning Regulations and the Building Codes concerning building permit time limits. Additionally, the current fee schedule as contained in the Zoning Regulations is out of date. The Zoning Regulations were adopted by the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners on September 23, 1966. Article 26 was amended in 1988 when the first Douglas County Building Code was adopted. The building permit fees and time limits are not static. The fees can be amended periodically by the Board of County Commissioners and the expiration is set by the currently adopted building codes.
The following is the current Douglas County Zoning Regulations pertaining to permits, Article 26. The proposed deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown by underline.
ARTICLE 26. PERMITS, PLATS AND FILING FEES
SECTION 26-1. PERMITS
No building or mobile home shall be erected, constructed, altered, moved, converted, extended or enlarged, unless exempted by applicable building codes, except for strictly agricultural purposes, without the owner or owners first having obtained a building permit therefore from the administrative officer. Such permit shall require conformity with the provisions of the Douglas County Zoning Regulations and shall be issued in accordance with and subject to all applicable provisions of all applicable subdivision regulations, building codes, rules and similar regulations is Resolution. When issued, such permit shall be valid for a period of six (6) months.
No building permit by the administrative officer, lawfully issued prior to the effective date of this Resolution, or of any amendment hereto, and which permit, by its own terms and provisions, is in full force and effect at said date, shall be invalidated by the passage of this Resolution, or any such amendment, but shall remain a valid and subsisting permit, subject only to its own terms and provisions and resolutions, rules, and regulations appertaining thereto, and in effect at the time of the issuance of said permit; provided that all such permits shall expire not later than sixty (60) days from the effective date of this Resolution, unless actual construction shall have theretofore begun and continued pursuant to the terms of said permit.
Charges for building permits, inspections, and related fees shall be set and amended by the Board of County Commissioners from time to time.
SECTION 26-1.01. The cost of a building permit for a mobile home, manufactured home, a residential dwelling, a residential design manufactured home, moved home, or a converted home shall be based upon the adopted County Building Code.
The cost of a building permit for a quasi-public, commercial or industrial building shall be based upon valuation as determined by the data contained in the latest bimonthly publication entitled "Building Standards." Public agencies shall be exempt from a building permit fee.
Once the building valuation has been determined, the building permit fee shall be calculated from the following table:
TABLE NO. 1-A BUILDING PERMIT FEES
TOTAL VALUATION FEE
$1 TO $500 -- $16.33
$501 to $2,000 -- $18.40 for the first $500 plus $2.42 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.
$2,000 to $25,000 -- $55.21 for the first $2,000 plus $10.89 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.
$25,001 to $50,000 -- $309.17 for the first $25,000 plus $7.90 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.
$50,001 to $100,000 -- $507.11 for the first $50,000 plus $5.48 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.
$100,001 to $500,000 -- $785.20 for the first $100,000 plus $4.19 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.
$500,001 to $1,000,000 -- $2,502.84 for the first $500,000 plus $3.63 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.
$1,000,001 to $5,000,000 -- $4,343.16 for the first $1,000,000 plus $2.42 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $5,000,000.
$5,000,001 to $15,000,000 -- $14,158.20 for the first $5,000,000 plus $1.21 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $15,000,000.
$15,000,001 and above -- $26,427.01 for the first $15,000,000 plus $0.81 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof.
Other Inspection and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charges -- two hours) -- $36.75 per hour.*
2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 108.8 -- $36.75 per hour.*
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge -- one-half hour) -- $36.75 per hour.*
4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans (minimum charge -- one-half hour) -- $36.75 per hour.*
*Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. The cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved.
SECTION 26-1.02. No building permit will be required to repair or remodel the interior of a building as long as exterior walls or roof lines are not altered.
SECTION 26-1.03. Any person who fails to obtain a building permit prior to commencing construction or moving a mobile home on the property shall pay a fee of $200.00 in addition to the cost of the building permit.
SECTION 26-2. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS
In addition to documents and other information requires pursuant to all applicable building codes and other regulations, aAll applications for building permits shall be accompanied by (i) two complete sets of construction plans; (ii) a recorded deed; (iii) evidence that a road access entrance permit has been issued by the Douglas County Public Works Department, Kansas Department of Transportation, or Township Board as appropriate; (iv) evidence that a sewage disposal system permit and water supply permit has been issued by the Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department or other appropriate agency or that no such permits are necessary; (v) a site plan; and (vi) a drawing or recorded boundary survey plat (prepared by a licensed land surveyor) in duplicate or as required by the Zoning Administrative Officer, showing the following (unless shown on the site plan):
(a) Location of proposed building(s) on the lot required street right-of-way line, base setback line, and required yard setback line. If necessary, a boundary survey prepared by a licensed surveyor shall be included.
(b) All easements, public or private; sewer or septic tank location; source of potable water supply and location.
(c) The drawings shall contain suitable notation indicating the proposed use of all lands and buildings.
(d) Vicinity sketch showing relationship of parcel to surrounding lands and existing street network.
(e) title block, which shall include a north arrow, date, legal description of the property, name of owner, and scale.
(f) Scale of drawings: For a parcel containing one acre or less--one inch equals fifty feet (1" = 50'); over one acre--one inch equals one hundred feet (1" = 100').
(g) A complete set of construction plans.
(g) Road access entrance location, culvert size, and materials, as approved by the Douglas County Public Works Department, Kansas Department of Transportation, or Township Board, as appropriate.
A careful record of the original copy of such applications and plats shall be kept in the offices of the administrative officer and a duplicate copy shall be kept at the building at all times during construction.
SECTION 26-3. FILING FEES.
SECTION 26-3.01. Al persons, firms, or corporations, or other entities (except any fFederal or sState governmental agency or any political subdivision thereof) appealing to the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be required to pay, in advance, a filing fee One Hundred Dollars ($100.000) for expenses relative thereto. The filing fee shall be set and amended by the Board of County Commissioners from time to time. No part of the filing review fee shall be refunded after review of the request has begun.
SECTION 26-3.02. All persons, firms, or corporations, or other entities (except any fFederal or sState governmental agency or any political subdivision thereof) applying for a Conditional Use Permit under the provisions of Article 19 of this Resolution the Douglas County Zoning Regulations, or a change in the classification of the district or a portion thereof, necessitating the publication of notices in the newspaper shall be required to pay, in advance, a filing fee One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for expenses relative thereto. The filing fee shall be set and amended by the Board of County Commissioners from time to time. No part of the filing review fee shall be refunded after review of the request has begun.
SECTION 26-3.03. The payment of filing fees such money in advance to the Douglas County Zoning Administrator shall be deemed a condition precedent to the consideration of such appeal, cConditional uUse pPermit or amendment.
SECTION 26-3.04. If a proposed amendment is approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the property owner shall pay to Douglas County Zoning Administrator a fee in an amount to be set and amended by the Board of County Commissioners, from time to time, to cover publication costs, which fee shall be paid a Thirty-five Dollar $35.00) publication fee before the resolution making the amendment is published.
After discussion, Jones made a motion to approve the Text Amendment to Article 26 of the County Zoning Regulations as outlined above. Motion was seconded by McElhaney and carried unanimously.
PLANNING 08-22-05
The Board considered SP-10-64-04: United Methodist Church of Eudora, a site plan for the construction of a 14,322 square foot church building to be located at 2044 N 1300 Road. Submitted by Kurt von Achen for United Methodist Church of Eudora, property owner of record.
The subject property is located on the south side of Eudora at the southwest corner of K-10 Highway and E 2100 Road. The east side of E 2100 Road is located in the Eudora City Limits. The subject property abuts K-10 Highway on the north side.
The proposed building is shown in two phases. The initial phase includes a 14,322 square foot building and associated parking and access on the south and west sides of the building. Access to the site is accommodated from a driveway from N 1300 Road on the south side of the property. A future parking lot and building footprint are shown for conceptual relationship including a second access drive to N 1300 Road east of the first access.
The applicant has been working with KDOT to orient the development in a manner that will not conflict with future improvements for an interchange of K-10 Highway and Winchester Road (E 2100 Road). The site plan reflects a future right-of-way alignment for the expanded highway (6 lanes) and the access ramp that will encumber an estimated 2.5 acres of the northeast corner of the subject property. The proposed site plan shows a building setback from the future property line that is consistent with the zoning code.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan subject to the following conditions:
- Provision of a note that states a revised site plan must be submitted for approval for all future improvements to this site; and
- Provision of a revised site plan to show the location of a trash storage area and to include a note regarding the method of removal of trash from the site.
Jones moved approval of SP-10-64-04 subject to the above conditions. Motion was seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC WORKS 08-22-05
The Board considered approval of a bid for improvements to Route 458 at E 1000/N 1200 Road -- Douglas County Project No. 2004-11. Keith Browning, Director of Public Works/County Engineer, explained that this project entails reconstruction of the Route 458 curve at E 1000 Road/N 1200 Road, sometimes known as Banning's Corner and located just southeast of the Clinton Lake dam. The project also includes construction of 6'-wide paved shoulders through the reconstructed curve and along the existing east-west tangent section to a point approximately 1/2 mile east of E 1000 Road. This project is in the CIP scheduled for construction this year.
Several contractors obtained plans in order to bid on this project, however, only one bid was received from LRM Industries, Inc., in the amount of $503,836.
Browning noted that it was discovered earlier in the week that this project is not all contained on Corps ground which will require the acquisition of additional right-of-way. The property owners were contacted and a contract was negotiated with Steve & Patricia Shirk in the amount of $800, and an agreement was made with David Holroid to construct a field entrance in return for the right-of-way.
McElhaney made a motion to authorize the Chair to sign the Contract for Highway Purposes between Douglas County, Kansas and Stephen H. and Patricia A. Shirk. Motion was seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously.
Jones made a motion to accept the bid from LRM Industries, Inc. to construct Project No. 2004-11 -- improvements to Route 458 in the vicinity of E 1000 Road/N 1200 Road, and authorize the Director of Public Works to approve change orders totaling 5% of the construction contract amount. Motion was seconded by McElhaney and carried unanimously.
PLANNING 08-22-05
The Board noted receipt of CPA-2005-04: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Horizon 2020, which proposes to incorporate into the plan a new chapter pertaining specifically to rural planning and development of the unincorporated areas of Douglas County. Jones made a motion to note receipt of CPA-2005-04 as proposed by the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 08-22-05
Jones moved approval of accounts payable in the amount of $688,458.30 to be paid 08/22/05; accounts payable manual checks in the amounts of $60.00 and $566.06; payroll in the amount of $657,725.19; and electronic funds transfers in the amounts of $48,367.29 for FICA and $45,386.54 for KPERS to be paid 08/19/05; Motion was seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENT 08-22-05
Mike Fangman, Clinton Township Resident, discussed issues regarding Red Tail Ridge Subdivision and Rural Water District #5. No action was taken.
Jones made a motion to adjourn; Johnson seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
_____________________________ _____________________________
Charles Jones, Chairman Bob Johnson, Member
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________
Jamie Shew, County Clerk Jere McElhaney, Member
Time and Date