Meeting Information
4:00 p.m.
-Consider approval of the minutes of October 27, 2010
CONSENT AGENDA
(1) (a) Consider approval of Commission Orders;
(b) Review and Approval of the Community Corrections Application for FY2010 Unexpended Funds (Ron Stegall);
(c) Consider approval for Public Safety trunking system and dispatch consoles maintenance contract (Amanda Reusch);
(d) Consider approval of Notice to the Township Boards for Cecil Monday's Bar & Grill to sell Cereal Malt Beverages at 2229 N 1400 Rd, Eudora (Clerk's Office)
(e) Consider approval of Notice to the Township Boards for Midland Farm Store to sell Cereal Malt Beverages at 1423 East 900 Road; (Clerk's Office)
(f) Consider approval of a Club "B" License for Little Reno, Inc. DBA Paradise Saloon, 1697 Highway 40, Lawrence; (Clerk's Office);
(g) Receive 2011 Long-Range Planning Work Program (Scott McCullough);
(h) Consider approval of 2011 Douglas County Holiday Schedule (Pam Madl);
(i) Consider approval of 2011 Douglas County Cost of Living Adjustment (Pam Madl);
(j) Consider approval of 2010 Radio Purchase in the amount of $21,169.98 (Sheriff's Office);
(k) Consider approval of 2010 Car Camera Purchase in the amount of $34,720.00 (Sheriff's Office);
(l) Consider approval of 2010 Light Bar purchase in the amount of $10,622.92 (Sheriff's Office); and
(m) Consider approval of addendum to the Landfill Agreement between and among Hamm, the City and County. (Dan Watkins)
REGULAR AGENDA
(2) Consider a Conditional Use Permit [CUP-9-3-10] for a wedding venue for Shoshanna's Garden, located at 1879 East 1700 Road. Submitted by Susan Rendall, property owner of record. (PC Item 4; approved 6-1 on 11/15/10) (Sandra Day is the Planner)
(3) Consider authorization for county administrator to contract with Governmental Assistance Services (GAS) to complete application for community development block grant for infrastructure improvements made necessary by the Berry expansion. (Craig Weinaug)
(4) Conduct work session to discuss future contracted road maintenance strategies (Keith Browning)
RECESS UNTIL 6:35 P.M.
6:35 p.m. -Reconvene
(5) Continue Public Hearing for recommendation regarding annexation, A-9-3-10, as deferred from the November 17, 2010 meeting, of approximately 51.13 acres located at the southwest corner of N 1800 Road (Farmer's Turnpike) and E 1000 Road (Queens Road Extended) and consider Resolution No. 6910 requesting that the Board of County Commissioners make the statutory finding as to whether the proposed annexation would not hinder or prevent the proper growth or development of the area or of any other incorporated city. Submitted by Venture Properties, Inc., property owner of record. (PC Item 6A; approved 8-0 on 10/27/10) Sandra Day is the Planner.
(6) Other Business
(a) Consider approval of Accounts Payable (if necessary)
(b) Appointments
(c) Miscellaneous
(d) Public Comment
(7) Adjourn
Thellman called the regular session meeting to order at 4:08 p.m. on Wednesday, December 1, 2010 with all members present.
MINUTES 12-01-10
Gaughan moved to approve the minutes of October 27, 2010. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.
CONSENT AGENDA 12-01-10
Thellman moved approval of the following Consent Agenda:
► Commission Order Nos. 10-030 and 10-031(on file in the office of the Clerk);
► Approval of the Community Corrections Application for FY2010 Unexpended Funds (Ron Stegall);
► 2011 Motorola Service Agreement for Public Safety trunking system and dispatch consoles in the amount of $35,840.64 to be paid from the 911 fee fund;
► Notice to the Township Boards for Cecil Monday's Bar & Grill to sell Cereal Malt Beverages at 2229 N 1400 Rd, Eudora;
► Notice to the Township Boards for Midland Farm Store to sell Cereal Malt Beverages at 1423 East 900 Road;
► Club "B" License for Little Reno, Inc. DBA Paradise Saloon, 1697 Highway 40, Lawrence;
► Receive 2011 Long-Range Planning Work Program;
► 2011 Douglas County Holiday Schedule for 2011 as follows:
New Year's Day Friday, December 31
Martin Luther King's Day Monday, January 17
Memorial day Monday, May 30
Fourth of July Monday, July 4
Labor Day Monday, September 5
Thanksgiving Thursday-Friday, November 24-25
Christmas Monday, December 26
Two (2) Personal Discretionary Days
► Cost of Living Increase in the amount of 1.0% for the fiscal year 2011;
► Waive the Bidding process for the purchase of (6) Motorola XTS 5000 portable radios and accessories in the amount of $21,169.98 utilizing the state purchasing contract through TFM Communications via state contract number 28440 and authorizing the Sheriff to complete the purchase;
► Waive the bidding process for the purchase based on its sole source status and authorize the Sheriff to complete the purchase of (7) Digital Ally DVM750 digital video mirror kits and accessories in the amount of $34,720.00;
► Authorized the Sheriff to complete the purchase of (7) Whelen Liberty light bars in the amount of $10,600.62, the low bid, and authorize the Sheriff to complete the purchase;
► Addendum to Landfill Agreement to amend the Agreement entered into by the following parties: N.R. Hamm Quarry, Inc, of Perry, Kansas; Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County and the City of Lawrence, on December 16, 1992.
Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
PLANNING 12-01-10
The Board considered the approval of a Conditional Use Permit [CUP-9-3-10] for a wedding venue for Shoshanna's Garden, located at 1879 East 1700 Road. The application was submitted by Susan Rendall, property owner of record. Sandra Day, Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Staff, presented the item. The current zoning designation for the property is A (Agricultural) District. Recreational facilities are allowed in the A District with approval of a CUP. The Planning Commission approved the item on a 6-1 vote, with Commissioner Burger in opposition. Staff recommends approval of the CUP for outdoor events subject to the following conditions:
1) The provision of a revised site plan with the following changes and notes:
a) "Chemical or compost toilets may be used only if approved by the County Health Official."
b) "The applicant is responsible for dust control dependant on a complaint basis and to be coordinated with the County Public Works Department prior to events." The applicant is responsible for dust control. Dependent on a complaint basis to be coordinated with the Township board prior to events. County Commission retains the right to review the dust prevention methods based on complaints from County Public Works, Township Staff, or neighbor calls to determine if the methods are sufficient and to direct the applicant to mitigate dust disturbance through an approved treatment for dust control.
c) "Maximum number of events limited to not more than 3 events in one week period."
d) "Tents used for events shall be erected no more than 24 hours in advance of an event and shall be removed within 24 hours concluding an event."
e) "Applicant shall provide a lighting plan per staff approval if lighting is be used for events. Lighting shall be low to the ground, shielded and directed downward."
Flory stated he has concerns with dust. He wants to build a condition into the CUP to allow the County to retain some control if we receive complaints. The applicant is responsible for remedying the situation.
Flory moved to approve the CUP subject to the existing conditions set forth by staff and clarifying the dust control condition as listed in above conditions. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.
GRANT 12-01-10
The Board discussed approving a contract with Governmental Assistance Services (GAS) in the amount of $13,900 to complete an application for a Community Development Block Grant for infrastructure improvements made necessary by the Berry Plastics expansion. Douglas County has to apply for the grant. The fee also covers coordination between the County, developer and Berry Plastics, and responsibility for the submission of the grant to the State of Kansas.
Craig Weinaug, County Administrator, stated the amount of $600,000 has been discussed as the County proposed portion for infrastructure improvements, but that amount has not been formally approved.
Thellman moved to authorize Craig Weinaug, County Administrator, to execute the Contract for Services with Governmental Assistance Services in the amount of $13,900. Motion was seconded by Flory and carried 3-0.
PUBLIC WORK SESSION 12-01-10
Keith Browning, Director of Public Works, and Terese Gorman, County Engineer, made a presentation to the Board regarding their proposed plan for road maintenance strategies through 2014. Browning stated the county is experiencing problems with high traffic roads that have been chip/sealed a number of times. Browning recommends that the county plan to overlay most county roads over the next few years until all or most county roads have been overlaid. The county would then return to a regular schedule of chip sealing these roads in most locations starting in 2014. At present, chip seal will only be used on lower traffic volume roads.
It was the consensus of the Board they agree with the proposed plan.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 12-01-10
Thellman moved to approve accounts payable in the amounts of $109,001.28 to be paid on 12/02/10, and $425,614.00 paid on 11/24/10; and a wire transfer in the amount of $7,875.00 paid on 12/01/01. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
APPOINTMENT 12-01-10
Thellman moved to appoint Matthew Fishburn, Lawrence, as the Fair Board for Clinton Township, filling the expired term of Doug Berg. Motion was seconded by Flory and carried 3-0.
At 5:10 p.m. the Board recessed until the 6:35 p.m. meeting
At 6:35 p.m. Thellman reconvened the County Commission Meeting.
ANNEXATION FINDING 12-01-10
At 6:35 p.m., Thellman moved for the Board to recess to Executive Session for 10 minutes, until 6:45 p.m. for the purpose of consultation with the County Counselor on matters concerning the annexation finding. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried unanimously. Attendees included: Evan Ice, County Counselor, and Craig Weinaug, County Administrator.
The Board returned to regular session at 6:45 p.m. No action was taken.
Thellman continued the Public Hearing for recommendation regarding annexation, A-9-3-10, as deferred from the November 17, 2010 meeting, of approximately 51.13 acres located at the southwest corner of N 1800 Road (Farmer's Turnpike) and E 1000 Road (Queens Road Extended) and consider Resolution No. 6910 requesting that the Board of County Commissioners make the statutory finding as to whether the proposed annexation would not hinder or prevent the proper growth or development of the area or of any other incorporated city.
Ronald Schneider, attorney representing Scenic Riverway Community Association, made a presentation referencing the court case of Cedar Creek Properties vs. Board of Johnson County Commissioners, 249 Kan. 149, 815 P.2d. 492 (1991) which is a Kansas Supreme Court decision Schneider feels addressed legal and factual issues directly relating to the pending island annexation as proposed by Venture Properties. Schneider stated the only representation for the outlying residents is the BOCC. He asked that all of the uses proposed in the IG industrial zoning be considered in the decision of the finding. Schneider stated IG zoning is generally incompatible with residential areas and low-intensity commercial areas and that the sector plan is not binding. The Cedar Creek case requires the Board to consider all IG uses in the finding. Schneider identified four harms: annexation would be not compatible with existing and future residential uses, hinder development in professional service areas, hinder historic restoration and hinder development of other infrastructure ready sites. He feels there is a lack of information, traffic study, impact on drainage district, or proper planning for job growth and issues of preservation and conservation. He asked the Board to find the annexation will hinder proper growth in the area.
Flory stated the case Schneider referenced has to do with a rock quarry and that quarry needed a special use permit. Schneider said that is right. Flory stated in this case the proposed use is industrial. The proposed use has not been established by zoning. Schneider said that is agreed. Flory stated surrounding area for this proposed annexation is residential and agriculture. Schneider's clients are concerned with smells and noise.
Thellman said she is under the assumption the Board is supposed to make a finding which is specific to whether the annexation will hinder the growth and development in the area. But given Mr. Schneider's input, she is asking for direction from the County Counselor as to whether the Board also is allowed to or should focus on zoning.
Flory stated the proposed use of industrial is appropriate for the Board's consideration. We don't know what grade of industrial it will be. We can't make the zoning decision. If we find the annexation won't hinder, the City will make that decision.
Evan Ice, County Counselor, clarified that in the Cedar Creek case, the Board of Commissioners refused to let anyone discuss that the was going to be a quarry. The Kansas Supreme Court said if you know the proposed use, it must be considered.
Schneider feels this is exactly the same as the Johnson County case. The property was not zoned for a quarry at that time. He stated the applicant for this annexation is proposing IG industrial uses but whether the city will grant it is not known. Flory corrected that the Supreme Court said the error was the Board not hearing comments regarding the quarry.
Margerite Ermeling, representing the Scenic Riverway Community Association, stated the Board must consider what falls under IG Industrial District and that industrial use could hinder the area. The group d s not have issues with light industrial uses outside of the IG heavy industrial zone.
Toni Wheeler, Director of the Legal Department for the City of Lawrence, stated the City of Lawrence disagrees with Schneider's interpretation of the Cedar Creek case. That case was a different fact scenario where the use was known to be a quarry. The BOCC prohibited discussion, which was the reason for their decision. In this case, the precise use is unknown and the applicant advised they wish to have IG zoning and the flexibility to make that property available for uses that fall under that classification.
Scott McCullough, Planning Director, offered two documents to the Commission memo from staff summarizing the location and distinction between the three zoning districts in Lawrence, and a nonresidential district use table from the Land Development Code. He noted the pattern of industrial development. When the Development Code talks about industrial zoning, the sector planning designates zones to be compatible with each other. He summarized the differences and similarities of the IG uses compared to the uses allowed in the IL District.
Gaughan asked if McCullough knew the cost of extending infrastructure, delivering services to this site and how that cost would be applied to the area. McCullough stated he d s not have that list with him tonight. Staff has had the utility department look at feasible service plans for the area. McCullough presented concept plan maps to the Commission demonstrating that the Utility Department has tentatively reviewed the possibility of extended service to the property and general area.
Gaughan asked if the City has a plan for how those costs will be assessed.
McCullough said "no" the burden of development costs are on the owners of the property. There is a range of options that include benefit districts, partnerships between City and County, and combinations of the two.
Gaughan asked when it comes to considering proper growth of the area, would the City build these facilities so that adjacent properties would have access to those services. McCullough replied "yes."
Flory stated the City is asking the Board to make a finding, and he trusts staff has looked at providing infrastructure for this site. McCullough replied staff has worked with the utilities department and has determined this site can be serviced when necessary.
Jane Eldredge, attorney representing the landowner, stated she disagrees with Schneider's interpretation of the Cedar Creek case. At that time, some cities were getting aggressive with annexation and the landowner was getting left out. Our Sector Plan has been very specific on where industrial should be and what type. Medium to high density industrial is called out along I-70. The Cedar Creek case is important because there was not a Comprehensive Plan to call out what was proper growth. We have plans that determine that. We need to look at what has already been defined as proper development. This is 51 acres of a 4,000 acre sector plan.
Thellman commented that this is the beginning of the implementation of the sector plan and we are looking at a request for an island annexation, a kind of annexation the comprehensive plan language generally discourages. She asked what precedent you wish to set in developing the Farmer's Turnpike. Eldredge responded our annexation policy encourages the property owners to make requests for annexation. We've never before had a request for annexation that was turned down by the County. These are what the city has requested you to make findings on. Why bother to do the planning if we ignore it1/2
Thellman stated her concern is whether this parcel needs city annexation when the city's own notes say it is a site that is not contiguous with the city and will not have city services or infrastructure, and is described as a parcel that will be a "rural development." The question is, why must this land be annexed into the city if it will not receive the benefit of city services, even as an industrial development1/2 Eldredge responded if this land is annexed it will not be immediately served by city utilities. But we heard the testimony from the City that the wastewater and water plans are being updated to include this area. There is a plan in process on how to best service this area. Nothing will be done to this 51-acre site until there is zoning and a tenant. That will then promote site plans, studies, landscaping and utility plans to suit the user and be consistent with City services coming. The developer will be responsible for bringing utilities to the site. That's the policy. It's no different than Rockwell Farms. It will have local services.
Gaughan asked if in delivering service to this site, the interests of the rest of the sector were being taken into consideration. Eldredge suggested the area north of 6th Street as an example of what the proper land uses will be. That has not developed, yet it is annexed. A sewer plan has gone into effect. The plan will provide the best way to service the area and it will be in such a way the service will be implemented. Roads will be paid for by those who will benefit from them.
Cynthia Haines, 984 N 1800 Rd, said there are more than 40 residential homes in the vicinity of the proposed annexation, and 61 homes within a mile.
McCullough described an option for extending sewer services. The 51 acre site had been one of the options considered by Berry for their plan expansion. When this site was being considered, staff looked at how they would provide sewer services there. The preferred method was for services to come off a trunk main across I-70 that would have easy gravity feed to the property. As other properties develop, the owners of the properties would pay to hook onto that infrastructure.
Thellman stated Price Banks brought up Kaw Drainage District complaints of flooding already downstream of this property and a need for a comprehensive study of watershed issues prior to urbanization. She asked what the plans are for completing a study. McCullough reminded the Commissioners that the request for a comprehensive study of the watershed issues had been the subject of a joint work session between the City and the County Commissions. At that time, the consensus of the two boards was to consider the need for such a study when the 2012 budgets were being considered. The request by the drainage district was to jointly fund the study.
Steven Rothwell, 3724 Overland Court, stated his family owns property adjacent to the subject site and has no objection to the annexation and rezoning.
Schneider commented that the decision today will have an impact on the environment. He referenced Horizon 2020 and the Sector plan stated that is why island annexation is not preferred. Island annexations are not encouraged, but discouraged.
Rob Chestnut, City Commissioner, agreed island annexation should be looked at closely, and in industrial situation it is more common for an island annexation. He stated it is obvious with the approval of the I-2 zoning down the road this will be a corridor and will be developed. The planning process d s take services into account. Chestnut stated he d s not feel this annexation will hinder growth and development in the area. Overall, in the next 15-20 years, this corridor has the best potential for economic development.
Exparte Communications Declared by Commissioners:
Gaughan stated he met with Jane Eldredge and Steve Schwada on Monday; and Tom Kern with the Chamber. The discussion was about infrastructure and general information discussed at last week's Commission meeting.
Thellman stated she talked with Linda Finger, Planning Resource Coordinator and made a request for city commission and planning commission minutes.
Flory said he received a call from Hank Booth, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce. There was no substantive conversation. He also spoke with Linda Finger.
Thellman asked if there was any additional public comment or questions related to the exparte information that the Commissioners had just declared. No further comments or questions were received.
Thellman moved to close the public hearing; Gaughan seconded and the motion carried 3-0.
At 8:40 p.m., Gaughan moved for the Board to recess to Executive Session for 10 minutes, until 8:55 p.m. for the purpose of consultation with the County Counselor on matters concerning the annexation finding. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried unanimously. Attendees included: Evan Ice, County Counselor, and Craig Weinaug, County Administrator.
At 8:55 p.m., the County Commissioners returned to open session. Flory moved to extend the executive session for 10 minutes, until 9:05 p.m. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.
The Commission returned to regular session at 9:05 p.m.
Flory stated in his view, the narrow issue before the Board tonight is whether the proposed annexation will hinder or prevent the proper growth or development of the area. He asked what is the proper growth for the area and where is it found. It is found in Horizon 2020, the K-10 Farmer's Turnpike Sector Plan, and planning documents identifying this property as appropriate for industrial use. He asked, what is proper growth and development of the
area; what did a professional planning staff find; and what did the Planning Commission find after thorough review, determination and a public hearing find. Planning Staff and the Planning Commission determined that the annexation and eventual industrial use of the property would constitute proper growth and development of the area. Other factors that should be considered as to what the proper growth and development for the area relate the things that were considered when the sector plan and Horizon 2020 were determined.
Flory continued saying there is ample evidence on the record before us that industrial sites are essential for future economic development, growth and job creation in Douglas County. Also, there is ample evidence that this particular industrial site has excellent access to state and federal highways for the movement of goods and services.
Flory stated what he has determined from the evidence, the property, though the area has residents, is relatively isolated with natural buffers that would go along with those required in future development of the property. On the south is the Kansas Turnpike, to the North is the Farmer's Turnpike, with a natural buffer, on the East is Queens Road, and across from the subject property is agricultural land with no residents. To the west is a supportive landowner. The analysis is the proposed annexation is consistent with proper growth and development with long-term planning documents, as passed by governing bodies.
Flory stated the question before us it not what is optimal development; it's whether this annexation would hinder the proper development of the area. Industrial sites are necessary for proper growth and development. He said it is also important to consider his role as a Commissioner in this process. It's a quasi judicial function. That means we are charged with the responsibility of making a decision based upon on the facts as they are and not what we think they should be or what we speculate they might be at some unknown date in the future. It's also the Commission's responsibility to apply the existing long-range plans as they are, not what we think they should be or what we would rather have them to be. A judge in a court of law is required to apply the facts and law as they are not as they would like them to be, or what they think they should be. We have a similar role in this particular proceeding. Flory stated, the Board has been asked to consider a number of issues and concerns that may be important to various parties and important to him as well. He believes these issues are not appropriate to his consideration in this quasi-judicial role. There has been concern that extending infrastructure to this site will be expensive. That may be the case, but it is not an issue for the County Commission to determine at this stage of the proceedings. It certainly will be an important discussion for the City Commission as part of their discussion on whether to annex the property at the next stage. There has been argument that because there are other industrial sites available, the Board should deny this annexation request. Flory stated he d s not feel that is appropriate. Just because there are other industrial sites, that landowner should not be denied the right to develop his property. Drainage is a concern, but not an issue we should be deciding at this stage of the game. Drainage will be considered by the City if they determine to annex. It will be a part of any site plan approval if there is a developer and a proposed use.
Flory continued by saying our role is not to consider what is optimal. We are not even charged with the latitude of what we think is best. We have facts and policy before us we are to apply. The landowner has taken all the appropriate steps in his request to have the land annexed into the City of Lawrence. The City of Lawrence has expressed a desire to consider annexation of the property. They have not committed to it, but expressed a desire. A professional planning staff has done thorough analysis of the application. They have objectively applied the long-term planning documents and recommended annexation. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously recommended this Commission should find the annexation will "not hinder or prevent the proper growth and development of the area." That was after considerable public input and deliberation on their part. The annexation and proposed Industrial use are consistent with the long-term plans for the area as they currently exist. If we don't like the long-term plans, we should change them. It is our responsibility to apply those planning principles to this request.
The creation of additional industrial sites in Lawrence and Douglas County clearly will provide a potential for economic development and job creation, and benefit the entire community as a whole. Many of the concerns regarding the potential use and development of the property will be thoroughly considered by the Lawrence City Commission. Flory stated he is confident the City Commission will consider the issues that are troubling to many of the surrounding landowners; the density of zoning, the drainage, the buffering, and the site plan. Flory stated these are all matters he trusts will be considered and concerns will be heard if the Board makes the finding proposed tonight.
Based upon all the evidence presented, including the oral and written testimony, staff presentations, the planning documents of which we are guided by including Horizon 2020 and the K-10 Farmer's Turnpike Sector Plan, he proposed making the finding that the proposed annexation will not hinder or prevent the proper growth and development of the area or that of any other incorporated city located in Douglas County. He stated he also is very concerned about issues raised by landowners. He thinks it would be appropriate to say to the City Commission that if we make this finding, we strongly encourage that the City take a look at a lower zoning density, which would be more consistent with, although agricultural, an area that has county residents.
Thellman stated she struggled with this finding. Many people have worked really hard to complete the K-10 and Farmer's Turnpike Sector Plan and we understand how important this particular Farmer's Turnpike corridor is for the community's future because it has the best of both worlds. It is a historically important residential and agricultural community where there is much to be valued and protected, but it also has the land and topography that meet the comprehensive plan's general locational criteria for industrial development. Thellman stated she hears both sides acknowledging we need to make both work, though some residents are concerned that what is being asked is too much.
Thellman stated if the best intention of planning for future growth is through city annexation and extended city infrastructure and services, then growth should come as the City is actually able to accomplish those ends. The comprehensive plan suggests strongly that the city should grow according to its ability to provide service. This proposed island annexation d sn't fit that standard. It appears this parcel could be developed to the applicant's specifications without annexation since, as it is proposed, it will only require rural infrastructure. In this case, the comprehensive plan permits such development with an agreement to annex at a later date when city services become available. The county could handle this potential industrial site adequately as has already been shown with the progress on the Berry Plastics industrial site which is planned for an unincorporated area along Farmer's Turnpike. There is no identified tenant for this 51 acre parcel, only the wish of the landowner to market the site developed to rural standards. As such there's not an urgent need to contradict those parts of the comprehensive plan that warn against island annexation, or spot development. It's not that this isn't appropriate for some kind of industrial development, but it seems premature to make this request when city infrastructure and services will not be available and the City d sn't have an infrastructure plan or cost for those items should they be required.
Thellman stated we've worked hard to create a comprehensive plan and sector plan because we know that the best plan is one that looks broadly and is not just focused on specific locations. According to the comprehensive plan attention to watershed issues is an important part of understanding the bigger picture. Thellman acknowledge the concern brought by the Kaw Valley Drainage District saying there are already flooding problems downstream of this corridor, suggesting development should not proceed without a watershed study and those concerns should be heeded. Such a watershed study might change the way the area develops, not that it would stop given potential stormwater management issues.
Thellman stated that the County Commission is the only recourse for people living in the unincorporated area. As such, we have a special responsibility to listen to unincorporated citizens' concerns that the city might not have so much interest in. We also don't know what impact this development will have on the township roads, and whether there will be a burden placed on the township to maintain roads that weren't meant for industrial type uses. She believes it is not an exaggeration when people voice concerns that a heavy industrial development may decrease their property values. It is important to hear the statements that some have made that there might be a lighter industrial use that could be more fitting for the neighborhood uses that would not hinder growth and development of the area. Though she has faith in the City Commission, Thellman says we have no way of knowing whether they will hear these concerns regarding the IG zoning as proposed by the landowner. Thellman stated she has no doubt this is an area that will become industrialized to some extent, but she d s sense this request for annexation is premature since the watershed issues have not been fully studied and since the city d s not intend to extend city services or infrastructure concurrently with annexation. These concerns are enough to convince Thellman that annexation at this time might hinder the proper growth and development of the area. She cannot support the finding.
Gaughan stated it is no secret he is heavily motivated to find ways to assist in creating jobs for the Lawrence area. Infrastructure costs will also impact his constituents. Trying to find a balance is a challenge. What he was looking for in this process was transparency, what the plan is and where it's going, how we will get there. It is undeniable that we have a sector plan in place that ascribes a series of industrial zonings to this vicinity. The city will make the best decision for his constituents on how to get infrastructure there when the time comes. The decision will be based on the broader requirements for the area and not a short cut to provide services quickly to one location. The sector plan informs planning staff about what the plans need to accommodate for and what their plans need to look like. Ideally planning staff could have every planning document related to this area completed and updated for consideration at this time, it's not practical. Maybe that's a budgeting discussion of whether the planning department has the resources it needs to do all the work this community asks it to do. Gaughan stated balancing that with the other competing factors weights heavily on him. He understands island annexation is not sound land management, but this annexation is pursuing a zoning that our land use management documents ascribe to it. This annexation is doing what our own planning documents indicate we should be doing for this area. That is difficult to work around. The planning documents show this as IG zoning in the future. What we have before us is an IG annexation request. Logically, I'm moved to conclusion this annexation is what the area plan is looking for. Gaughan stated he feels it will not hinder the proper growth of the area.
Flory moved to direct staff to draft a resolution to bring back to the Board to consider adoption at the next meeting making a statutory finding that the City of Lawrence's annexation of property (A-9-3-10) will not hinder or prevent the proper growth or development of the area or of any incorporated city in the county; and the Board has serious concerns about density, based on neighboring landowners concerns, and hopes staff will take that into consideration being as cost effective as possible, and realizing this statement is not binding on the City. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 2-1 with Thellman in opposition.
Thellman moved to adjourn the meeting; Flory seconded and the motion carried 3-0.
________________________ ____________________________
Jim Flory, Chair Mike Gaughan, Vice-Chair
ATTEST:
________________________ __________________________
Jamie Shew, County Clerk Nancy Thellman, Member
Time and Date