MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF. May 08, Staff members present: Jim Hewitt, Ginny Owens, David Mahoney

Transcription

1 -- '" LEAVENWORTH COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF May 08, 1996 Meeting called to order at 6:33p.m. f^ Members present: John Hattok, Peggy Heintzelman, Mark Kole, Sam Maxwell, Steven Rosenthal, Eric Wendt, Mike Weilbacher Ex-Officio members present: cities of Basehor & Tonganoxie Members absent: Louis Box, Bill Altman Staff members present: Jim Hewitt, Ginny Owens, David Mahoney MINUTES: Commissioner Kole moved that April 10, 1996 minutes be approved. Seconded by Commissioner Rosenthal. Motion passed 7-0. Commissioner Rosenthal moved that Item's No. 1 and 2 be considered for approval at the same time. ITEM NO. l: Consideration of Lot Split request by Lee Connell (Charters International Co., Inc.) located in Section 12, Township 12, Range 20. ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of Lot Split request by Lee Connell ( Charters International Co., Inc.) located in Section 12, Township 12, Range 20. Jim Hewitt briefed the commission on the location of the lot splits, stating that they met the minimum lot size and road /^"n frontage standards of the rural growth zone. Commissioner Rosenthal moved that Item No. 1 and Item No. 2 be approved as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Maxwell. Motion passed 7-0 ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of Lot Split request by John Marksberry located in Section 26, Township 09, Range 22. Jim Hewitt briefed the commission on the location of the lot split, stating that it met the minimum lot size and road frontage standards of the initial growth zone. Commissioner Rosenthal asked what the percolation test results were for these lots. Mr. Hewitt replied that we no longer do the percolation tests or require that the results be turned in. Commissioner Hattok moved that Item No. 3 be approved as submitted. Seconded by commissioner Heintzelman. Motion passed 7-0 ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of SUP a request for a renewal of a Special Use Permit for a mobile communications tower. Located in NUI 1/4 of Section 21, f^ Township 10, Range 21. Submitted by Peterson, Polsinelli,

2 - " " White, Vardeman & Shalton acting as agents for Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. Jim Hewitt briefed the commission on the location, land use and character of the area stating that this application was a renewal of a Special Use Permit issued in 1991, and that there had been no complaints received on the tower. #*\ V Curtis Holland, applicant, on behalf of Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc., 7500 College Blvd., Overland Park, Ks. Stated that the property on which the tower was located was owned by Rosemary and Otto Bartel. Mr. Holland further stated that nothing had changed since its first approval, it is still very rural in nature with no residences located near by. Commissioner Kole asked Mr. Holland what the life expectancy of the tower was. Mr. Holland stated that they had a 20 year lease on the land, and the tower would last indefinitely. No one rose to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition. Chairman Weilbacher asked Mr. Holland what type of tower and what its height was. Mr. Holland replied that it was a guyed tower on 6 acres and that it was 400 foot high. Commissioner Heintzelman asked Mr. Holland what would happen if the tower became obsolete, the lease expired, and Southwestern Bell no longer wanted the tower at this location who would be responsible for removing the tower. ^n Mr. Holland stated that Southwestern Bell would be V responsible for the removal of that tower. Commissioner Heintzelman questioned what would happen if Southwestern Bell sold the tower. Paul Rablika, applicant, acting for Southwestern Bell stated that had never happened but if would be up to the property owners whether they wanted to lease the land to someone else. If someone else owned the tower then Southwestern Bell would not be responsible for removing the tower. Commissioner Heintzelman moved that SUP be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for approval with the following conditions. 1 ) 15 year duration 2) Compliance with all local, state, and federal rules and regulations. Seconded by Commissioner Wendt. Motion passed 7-0 ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of RZ a request for a rezoning from R-Rural to B-l Neighborhood Business on a tract of ground located in NW1/4 Section 12, Township 11, Range 21. Submitted by Bird Engineering Co., acting as agents for Roberta's Ranch & Antiques. Jim Hewitt briefed the commission on the location, zoning and land use of the surrounding area stating that the petition was located approximately 2 1/2 miles east of the City of Tonganoxie city limits and that the zoning was R-Rural and (^ existing land use was as pasture.

3 Bruce Bird, applicant, stated that he would answer any questions the commission might have. Robert Spehar, State Ave, stated that they were in /f*\ favor of the applicants petition. No one rose in opposition to the request. Mr. Hewitt recommended that the item be approved. Commissioner Heintzelman asked if the tract was pasture land only and if there were any buildings located on the tract. Mr. Bird stated there were no buildings. Commissioner Wendt asked what type of sanitary sewer was planned now and in the future. Mr. Bird stated that there were no immediate plans for a public sewer in the area. Currently, there are no public water lines in the area either. Mr. Bird further explained that the front of the lot was 300 foot wide and that extended back a ways and then it widened. Where it widened was where they wanted to put the building so that it would no be readily visible from the road. It is our intention to have a branch engineering office at the location if the market proves it can handle it, the business would be there with an area for parking vehicles behind.. Commissioner Rosenthal asked Mr. Bird if he had considered obtaining a Special Use Permit instead. Mr. Bird stated that ^s^ they were an engineering business and there was no reason to ( do that on a highway such as 24/40. Commissioner Rosenthal stated that he would rather see this petition come in as a Special Use Permit or a PUD. This doesn't have alot of commercial areas around that. Mr. Bird stated that to the east of the property was a Real Estate Office and there was other commercial development within a mile to the west. Mr. Bird stated that since he was unsure of the market for an engineering firm in the area his plans were not concrete enough for a PUD or Special Use Permit. Commissioner Maxwell asked what growth area this was located. Mr. Hewitt stated that it was in the Secondary Urban Growth Area. Mr. Hewitt explained that in this situation you would be looking at multiple uses on one piece of ground which would not work for a Special Use Permit and PUD's tend to be used when the applicant has set plans on how the property will evolve so that the applicant doesn't have to keep coming back to the commission for amendments. Mr. Hewitt stated that the area was identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial and Higher Density residential and that for this reason the item would not be /^ considered spot zoning.

4 Larry Shepek, representative, City of Tonganoxie stated that the city would have no problems with this action and would fit with the comprehensive plan for the city. Commissioner Hattok asked Commissioner Rosenthal what he had against the petition to rezone. Mr. Rosenthal stated that he had no problem with the type of business, or the location but once it is rezoned you lose control of it and they can do what ever they want within that zoning classification. Chairman Weilbacher asked what kinds of uses were allowed under a B-l classification. Mr. Hewitt stated, residential, display rooms, dressmaking, dry cleaners, offices, personal services etc., and that this was the most limited class. Commissioner Wendt asked how sewers were handled under a 8-1 classification. Mr. Hewitt stated commercial uses were regulated at the state level and the county was not involved. Commissioner Maxwell asked how close the nearest neighbor was. Mr. Bird replied there was a house within 300 foot to the west near the back of the property, and a mobile home 500 foot to the east. Commissioner Maxwell asked what type of security would be used at the location. Mr. Bird stated that he had not thought about that. Commissioner Maxwell stated that his concern was for barking dogs if that was the type of security he would be using. Commissioner Wendt moved that RZ be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioner for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Kole. Motion passed 4-3 with commissioners Maxwell, Rosenthal, and Weilbacher voting against. Planning Commission took a break from 7:15 to 7:35. Mark moved that the planning commission recess and reconvene as the Board of Zoning Appeals. Seconded by Commissioner Rosenthal. ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of BZA a request for a variance from road frontage requirements (300 feet). Located in Section 23, Township 11, Range 20. Submitted by Ronald & Martha Aitkens. Jim Hewitt briefed the board on the land use and location of the tract of ground requesting the variance from road frontage requirements. Mr. Hewitt reminded the board that there had been a question raised at the last meeting regarding the 30 foot strip on the west side of the property and that there were two points he wished to make. 1. ) Enclosed in your packet is a letter from the county counselor stating that it was his opinion that the 30 foot strip was an easement across the 17 acres to give the other

5 * ' property legal right to ingress and egress. 2.) that regardless of who owns the property or whether the property is an easement or not is a private issue between adjourning property owners and is not an issue that this board can legally get involved in. The request for a variance needs to be resolved regardless of the decision on the 30 foot strip. Either way the property does not have the required road frontage and needs a variance to make the tract buildable. Access is their business and does not come before this body. Commissioner Rosenthal asked for clarification on why this property needed a variance since he owned the surrounding property. Mr. Hewitt explained that they were two separate tracts and one already had a house on it and the second vacant piece had no road frontage. Ronald Aitkens, applicant, stated that he would answer any questions that the commission had. Curtis O'Roke, Metro Avenue, stated that he owned the adjoining ground to the west of the subject tract. Mr. O'Roke stated that he was not opposed to the applicant building a house on the tract but he was opposed to him using access directly next to his property. That access would be 45 foot away from my house. If that property is cleared all the rain water will flow into my house. Every time it rains I have to put my driveway back and this will just cause more damage. The Board of Zoning Appeals looked at pictures of the area. Mr. Hewitt stated that the county does not regulate where a ^ property owner puts a driveway and that is not something the f board should be considering. Commissioner Kole moved that the variance be approved. Seconded by Commissioner Maxwell. Motion carried 4-3 with commissioners Hattok, Heintzelman and Rosenthal voting against. Commissioner Kole moved that the Board of Zoning Appeals be adjourned and that the Planning Commission be reconvened. Seconded by Commissioner Wendt. Motion approved Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned 8:05. Leavenworth County Planning Commission ITEM NO. 7- Public Hearing on proposed changes to Leavenworth County Zoning Regulations. Jim Hewitt reviewed the status of the proposed changes to the Zoning Regulations, noting that the only section remaining for a action concerned the minimum size of tracts in the R- Rural Zoning District. He noted that the minimum size for the rural area was now 5 acres with a minimum of 300 feet of road frontage. Commissioner Rosenthal stated that he felt that leaving the requirement at 5 acres was more appropriate than to increase

6 4 - ' ' it to 10 acres. Commissioner Weilbacher asked for a staff recommendation. 0^ Mr. Hewitt stated that staff recommended that the current requirement be maintained and that no changes be made in this requirement. Commissioner Rosenthal moved to keep the current section on minimum tract size in the R-Rural District. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Wendt moved to amend the tract size requirement for the R-Rural district to 40 acres, with 300 feet of road frontage. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kole. The motion carried on a vote of 5-2. Voting in favor of the motion were Hattok, Kole, Wendt, Maxwell, and Weilbacher. Voting against the motion were Heintzelman and Rosenthal. ITEM NO. 8: Public Hearing on proposed changes to Leavenworth County Subdivision Regulations. Jim Hewitt reviewed the proposed amendments, noting that all the changes but the definition of Lot Split, were housekeeping types of changes to implement the changes previously acted upon with the changes to the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Hewitt noted that the change on Lot Splits would only require a lot split when a platted lot was being divided into 2 new tracts, as required by State Law. He stated that this would eliminate the requirement for the approval of a lot split when unplatted land was divided. Commissioner Rosenthal expressed concern over the limited size of the growth area if the 40 acre minimum tract size with 300 foot road frontage. A motion was made by Commissioner Kole, seconded by Commissioner Wendt to forward the amendments to the Subdivision Regulations to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. The motion carried 6-1, with Commissioner Rosenthal abstaining. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS OPEN AGENDA Dean O'Roke, Chieftain Drive, asked to see a map of the current growth zones. Mr. O'Roke then asked if all the zoning in the rural growth area was zoned rural and if any of the area in the initial and secondary growth zones, were zoned rural. Mr. Hewitt stated that there were areas in the rural growth zone that were zoned other than R-Rural and that there were areas in the initial and secondary growth zone that were zoned R-Rural. Mr. O'Roke asked the commission to

7 reconsider the action they had taken concerning a 40 acre minimum tract size. The change was made by rural zoning only and not by the growth areas. This means that a piece of ground in the growth area zoned R-Rural must me 40 acres with 300 foot of frontage. Mr. Hewitt reminded the commission that once there was basic ^ agreement on the growth area and the zoning and subdivision changes that the initial growth area would have all R-Rural zoning removed and replaced with R-l Low Density Residential. Commissioner Rosenthal moved that the Planning Commission schedule the next study session for Tuesday, May 28 at 6=30. Motion approved. Meeting adjourned. ALL FILES, MAPS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THIS MEETING, ALONG WITH THE OFFICIAL TAPE RECORDING ARE MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES. SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL THIS DAY OF JUNE, 1996 H. JAMES HEWITT, SECRETARY APPROVED THIS DAY OF JUNE, 1996 MIKE WEILBACHER, CHAIRMAN