LEAVENWORTH COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING December 9, 2015

Transcription

1 Meeting called to order at 6:00 pm LEAVENWORTH COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING December 9, 2015 Members present: Steve Rosenthal-Chairman, James Grosdidier-Vice-Chairman, John Matthews, Jay Schwinn, Louis Box, Donald Terrien, Mark Denney, and Erlys Moe. Members absent: Chris Raymos Staff present: Jeff Joseph-Director, James Kraatz-Senior Planner, Jillian Ogden-Planner, Krystal Davis-Assistant Planner, Stephanie Sloop-Planning Coordinator, and Trevor Huhn-Public Works Approval of Minutes: Chairman Rosenthal Do we have a motion on the November minutes? Commissioner Box Chairman I make a motion to approve the minutes as written. Commissioner Matthews I will second it. Chairman Rosenthal We have a motion on the floor with a second to approve the minutes, we will now have a roll call vote of members present. ROLL CALL VOTE Motion Carries to Approve 8/0, Secretary s Report: Jeff Joseph I have nothing to report today Mr. Chairman. Chairman Rosenthal Approval of agenda, we do not have anything on the consent agenda this month, we have three items to hear tonight and nothing is on the consent agenda so we will be hearing all the items. Do I have a motion on the agenda? Commissioner Moe I so move that we approve the agenda. Commissioner Schwinn I second. Chairman Rosenthal We have a motion on the floor with a second to approve the agenda as written. Is there any discussion? We will have a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE Motion Carries to Approve 8/0 Chairman Rosenthal- Any declarations? Chairman Rosenthal Case No. DEV /116 Consideration of a Preliminary and Final Plat for Cocheta Crossing, a five lot plat on a tract of land located in Section 20, Township 9S, Range 23 E of the 6 th P.M., in Leavenworth County, Kansas. Request submitted by Dustin Anaya. This is not a public hearing item. The Planning Commission may, at its discretion, permit public input. Upon recognition, give your name and address for the record as this meeting is being recorded. Staff Report: Krystal Davis Good Evening Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, this is Case No DEV /116 Cocheta Crossing Preliminary and Final Plat. The applicant is Dustin Anaya of Lansing Kansas. This proposed plat is west of Wolcott Road 1

2 (K-5 Highway) on the North side of Stranger Road. The zoning district is RR 2.5. The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary and final plat of a 5-lot subdivision of an 18-acre parcel. The proposed subdivision does not have adequate water supply for fire protection infrastructure. Consolidated Water District #1 has indicated their support of infrastructure upgrades to support a fire hydrant however RWD 1 has indicated improvements to the infrastructure shall be at the developer s expense. The proposed subdivision is a 5-lot subdivision. It meets all of our zoning regulations. It is a Class A Subdivision. According to the Leavenworth County Zoning & Subdivision Regulations, a Class A Subdivision shall be served by an approved public sewage system. The Applicant may request a waiver of the requirement for an approved public sewage system. The City of Lansing s Wastewater Utility Director has indicated the city does not have any interest in providing sanitary sewer. Sanitary sewer is approximately one-half mile from the proposed subdivision. Consolidated Water #1 has indicated they can supply water for residential use to the proposed lots within the subdivision. Currently a 2 water pipe exists. Fire hydrants cannot be placed on a 2 line. Fire District #1 indicates the proposed subdivision is within approximately 700 of a 12 water main. Fire District #1 is requesting a fire hydrant be installed in the vicinity of lots 2-3. Emergency Management also recommends installation of a fire hydrant. According to the Leavenworth County Zoning & Subdivision Regulations a fire hydrant shall be provided by the developer. The applicant is here and will answer any questions that you may have. Chairman Rosenthal The fire hydrant is going on a 12 line, is that what I understand? Krystal Davis The infrastructure would need to be extended. It has to be a minimum of a 6 line in order to support fire protection services there. Chairman Rosenthal They are asking to have one hydrant so a line would need to be brought in for one hydrant but not through the whole subdivision? Correct? Jeff Joseph Just to the location where Emergency Management is recommending, they have specific locations where they need to be located. They have to bring the pipeline in to support that. Chairman Rosenthal RWD 1 is okay with that I gather? Jeff Joseph They are actually requiring that. Basically, we included the stipulation that says they have to work with Emergency Management and Fire District 1 to install a fire hydrant. Chairman Rosenthal Public Works? Trevor Huhn We have no further comments. Chairman Rosenthal Does the applicant wish to speak? Dustin Anaya I don t have any questions. Chairman Rosenthal Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request? Is there anyone who is wishing to speak in opposition of this request? Is there any additional information to be presented? Jeff Joseph Not at this time. Chairman Rosenthal Are there any comments or questions commissioners? If there is no more discussion I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Box I recommend that we approve DEV /116 Preliminary and Final Plat for Cocheta Crossing. 2

3 Commissioner Matthews I will second. Chairman Rosenthal I have a motion on the floor with a second that we approve DEV /116 Preliminary and Final Plat for Cocheta Crossing, with staff recommendations. Is there any final discussion? We will have a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE Motion is approved 8/0 Chairman Rosenthal The Board of County Commissioners will consider this item on January 7, 2016 at the Leavenworth County Courthouse. Chairman Rosenthal Case No. DEV /122 Consideration of a Preliminary and Final Plat for Crosby Addition, a two lot plat on a tract of land located in Section 27, Township 11 S, Range 22 E of the 6 th P.M. in Leavenworth County, Kansas. Request submitted by Atlas Surveyors. Staff Report: Jillian Ogden Chairman and Members of the Commission, this is Case DEV /122 Preliminary and Final Plat Crosby Addition. The applicant is Atlas Surveyors and the property owners are Mike and Sandra Crosby. The property is located on the north side of Linwood Road approximately 1900 west of 158 th Street. The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary and final plat of a 2-lot subdivision of a 12.8 acre parcel. The proposed plat is a 2-lot subdivision. Lot 1 does not meet the lot-depth to lot-width ratio of 3.5:1. There are currently a primary residence and an accessory residence on this parcel. The primary residence is down on the south corner of the property and the accessory building is on the back of the property. The property owner would like to replace the accessory residence with a permanent dwelling. According to the Leavenworth County Zoning & Subdivision Regulations, each parcel may only have one primary residence. In order to have two permanent residences on this property, the parcel must be divided. Therefore, staff supports an exception to the lot-depth to lot-width ratio for Lot 1 in order to bring the property into compliance with this regulation. Currently, the existing entrance from Linwood Road (Highway 32) provides access to three existing parcels. Two adjacent properties share the entrance while a third uses the entrance with a Shared Driveway Access Agreement. With the approval of this plat, this entrance will provide access to four lots. Staff supports this condition because the entrance and driveways are existing and will not change with this property division. Additionally, floodplain is located in the Right-of-Way of Lot 1 and obstructs the lot s access to Linwood Road. This is classified as a Class C Subdivision. According to the Leavenworth County Zoning & Subdivision Regulations, a Class C Subdivision is any subdivision in which all the lots lie within the Rural Urban Growth Area of Leavenworth County. Staff is supportive of a waiver of the requirement to connect to a sanitary sewer system as sanitary sewers are not located within 660 of the subdivision. Staff finds the proposed plat acceptable. The applicant is here and would be happy to answer any questions. Chairman Rosenthal Public Works? Trevor Huhn I have nothing further to add to the information provided. Chairman Rosenthal Any questions of staff? Does the applicant wish to speak? Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this request? In opposition of this request? Is there any additional information to be presented? Jeff Joseph Nothing further. Chairman Rosenthal Are there any questions or comments commissioners? If not, I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Moe I move that we approve Case DEV /122 Preliminary and Final Plat for Crosby Addition. Commissioner Box I will second that motion. 3

4 Chairman Rosenthal We have a motion on the floor and a second to approve DEV /122 Preliminary and Final Plat for Crosby Addition. Is there any discussion? I actually have a question, there is plenty of road frontage to have their own driveways and it is done so I don t see a problem, but if there becomes a problem they could each put in a driveway on their own lot if they wanted, couldn t they? Jillian Ogden - There is a floodplain that goes through the parcel, and it is in the area they would enter the parcel from the roadway. Chairman Rosenthal They couldn t put a driveway in there? Jillian Ogden It is off of KDOT State Highway and there is a floodplain there. Jeff Joseph The only reason staff is supportive of this is because it is existing. We need to figure out what to do with these two houses on the property. This is the only way we found to be a better solution in the future. By doing this plat you have two lots and two houses on each lot and that makes it compliant with the subdivision regulations. Even though it doesn t meet some of the other criteria I think it is a better plan than what is existing. Chairman Rosenthal Is there any other discussion? If not we will have a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE Motion is approved 8/0 Chairman Rosenthal The Board of County Commissioners will consider this item on January 7, 2015 at the Leavenworth County Courthouse. Chairman Rosenthal Case No. DEV Consideration of an application to rezone a parcel of land from the RR 2.5 zoning district to the B-3 zoning district, on a tract of land located in Section 11, Township 11, Range 21 E of the 6 th P.M. in Leavenworth County, Kansas. Request submitted by Herring Surveying Company. Staff Report: James Kraatz This is Case DEV a rezoning request. This is for a parcel located at the southwest corner of State Avenue and 198 th Street. The request is to rezone from RR-2.5 to the B-3 zoning district. This is a request to rezone 20.5 acre parcel from RR 2.5 to B-3. The request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Highway 24/40 Corridor Study indicates this area as a T-2 transect, a T-2 transect is intended to remain undeveloped until logical expansion of the urban area occurs. There currently is a lack of public infrastructure, public water, sanitary sewer, and 198 th Street is a gravel road approximately 24 wide with site distance issues. If the site were to develop with stores, restaurants, offices, and residences, then the requirement for improvements of public infrastructure would be required. If the site were to develop with a low impact use, then improvements to public infrastructure may not be required. The Highway 24/40 Corridor Study indicates a future collector road to run east/west in the vicinity of this parcel. This road is approximately 950 south of Highway 24/40, near the southern portion of this parcel. The Comprehensive Plan indicates an east/west road south of this parcel. Only one road should be constructed. The location should be determined by a study to determine the best location of the future road. This study should be completed prior to the development of the site with a high impact use. The Future Land Use Map indicates this area as retail. The proposed rezoning does conform to the Future Land Use Map. Prior to contemplating the future development of the site, the developer shall meet with the Planning and Zoning Department to discuss the proposed development. If staff determines that the use is intense or will constitute a substantial portion of the site, a study shall be completed to determine the location of the east/west road and what portion of the road will be necessary to be constructed to serve the development. Prior to the construction of building(s) on the site, a site plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department for review. The site plan shall comply with all requirements of Article 27 of Leavenworth County Zoning and Subdivision regulations. 4

5 We can answer any questions you have at this time. Chairman Rosenthal Public Works? Trevor Huhn I have nothing further to add. Chairman Rosenthal Any questions of staff? Upon opening this public comment portion of this hearing, those of you who wish to speak either for or against this item upon recognition, will give your name and address each time you begin to speak. This is necessary since the public hearing is being recorded. The public comment portion of this hearing is now open. Will the applicant please come forward? Joe Herring Gilman Road, Leavenworth, KS Thank you for hearing this tonight, you have seen this property come before you as the driving range and the Leavenworth County Co-op. Both of those properties at that time were owned by Cornerstone, the church. The church no longer owns the property, Dan Lynch purchased this property in its entirety and would like to rezone it to match the Future Land Use so he can market this and find a potential buyer. The other two times when they had people in contract to buy it they came through and tried to present their case to get a rezone so we are trying to get in front of it and get it rezoned to retail and B-3 allows for all those possible uses of retail and that is the reason for the request tonight. I am here to answer any questions you may have. Chairman Rosenthal Thank you, we will now hear from those individuals present wishing to speak in favor of the request. We will now hear from those individuals present wishing to speak in opposition of the request. James Cunningham State Ave, Tonganoxie KS As you are all aware of we have come before you several times about this property. The local neighbors are opposed to this being used for business use. We want it to continue to be rural as it has been from the beginning. As the zoning department indicated the 24/40 Corridor Study said that it needed to be urban development in the future while it stayed currently as residential use and farm use. Not make it a retail environment or business use. The comprehensive plan shows it as residential, the Leavenworth Comprehensive Plan shows the property directly to the east of that street on 198 th Street as a business but it doesn t show this property on the corner as being a retail business. In the past and with the Board of County Commissioners we have talked about the lack of water availability on the property. That is a big concern with us as far as well depletion. We are worried about fire safety and that the Co-op is going to come back in and try to do a Special Use Permit for propane storage. We were here in June and July to try to get it turned down for rezoning it into industrial zoning and it did get turned down. We were back in September and they tried to piggy back it with trying to change the classifications of Special Use Permits for Rural Residential and we got that turned down at the County Commission level and because they only allow business and industrial use to be used for a Special Use Permit we feel like this is just another attempt, all the same people are involved. Mr. Herring stood up and represented the Co-op. He works directly as an agent for Dan Lynch, Lynch Realty. To be honest with you as homeowners we are getting frustrated with it being able to come back up again and again. Article 19, in your rules and provision that are basically laws for the zoning department. You guys show that an applicant can only apply one time in twelve months for a Special Use Permit or a rezoning and we have been through this twice already and here we are a third time. I know in this case Mr. Herring has no interest in the property other than being an agent and that basically makes him a proxy applicant. We want to express that we are opposed to this for a lot of different reasons. If this gets approved and passed we are going to be right back here again with a Special Use Permit for the Co-op. I think everyone on the board knows that. I know that if this gets passed on to the Commissioners we will have to do a protest petition and we are prepared for that. That is all I have to say at this point. Chairman Rosenthal Thank you sir. Anyone else wish to speak in opposition? Stephanie Liebling th Street. I am speaking in opposition of this petition. I am in agreement with Mr. Cunningham. I would also like to say that I am speaking in support of the letter that the City of Tonganoxie sent and I want to make sure that is in the record, the City of Tonganoxie has contacted the Planning Commission and let you know that they are in opposition of this also. I certainly want to make sure it is on the record that the city is saying that. The copy of the letter that I have states, The development other than the rural level of residential development is not appropriate until such time that urban services are available. I would also support Mr. Cunningham s comment that the services are not available at this time until the area is reclassified to a more intense urban zone. One of the objections I have to this is I think that with the County it is very important that the spirit of the City and County cooperation would support the wishes of the most adjacent city, and the City of Tonganoxie is growing and will most likely be annexing this as the City grows. One of the objections that I have is merely again that we need goodwill and spirit between and City and 5

6 a County and if the City is objecting to this I think that is a serious objection that needs to be taken into account in addition to the residences of the area. You have that local municipality that certainly is more than likely going to be taking this parcel of land under its auspices somewhere down the road. I certainly support the fact that there is no infrastructure or services at this time for this business zoning there. I do have some other objections also; I think it is counterproductive to the County and City relationship. I think not only does it violate the letter but also the spirit of the kindheartedness and cooperation that we want to see because we are all citizens of the same community. The infrastructure isn t in place. I also am concerned about this petition because it seems very convenient that this petition has come up just after the County has approved that Propane Stations be allowed in places other than places for industrial business. It is still an industrial type of business even though they have changed the ordinances to allow it on a B-3. I find this petition to be somewhat suspect that, pardon me for being a little bit informal, but you can put lipstick on a pig but she is still not going to answer it yet. It is not an appropriate use for this area. Sorry for being too informal. My reading is that this does not conform to the T-2 study. As a matter of fact the T-2 study specifically says that this area should be rural residential. It would be out of character to allow this rezone to occur. It is out of compliance with the immediate surrounding area. I am also concerned about 198 th Street that it is not in shape to take the burden of any extra traffic. The other thing that concerns me is that if this was B-3, a B-3 has the widest scope of business that is allowed. I think that we need to pay attention that they want this not a B-1 that has a narrower scope of businesses that would be allowed and I would not have an objection to some type of B-1 business to go out there but some of the things that B-3 allow are an airport or landing field, aviation field, detention facility, mental health facility, a private club, a strip club, that doesn t agree with the nature of the residences. You have access to the table of uses like I do so you should take a look at it; B-3 is the widest and most aggressive scope of potential business that could be there. I think that alone is reason to deny this. To summarize the last thing there is no direct petitioner to this. There is no direct business person that is saying I want to put a small CPA Tax Business on there, I want to put a computer business there, and I want to put a small building with 5-6 spaces there = 4, we know that equation and we are confident we know what that solution is because we know all the variables in that equation. The petition that is before you this evening we don t know all the variables. We don t know who is behind this, the fact that there is no specific business that is petitioning to be in this place, I think it opens up a wide variety and potentially harmful to the County and the local city as well as the local residences. I am sure you have heard a lot of the other arguments that still stand and I want to circle back around because I am very concerned because the City of Tonganoxie is also opposed to this and I am concerned about making sure the nature of the City and the County and the spirit of all of the residences that we all work together. I do urge you to deny this petition because it does seem to oppose that spirit. Troy McKitrick th Street. I am in opposition of this request. Not knowing what is planned to go on this property, again we think we know what it is, but I would be concerned about fire protection. We have no hydrants out there; the closest hydrant is down on Sandusky. There is a fire protection issue, depending on what business is there and what the fire code might be. Also, this could affect our property values. I don t know if you have driven out there but the homes are pretty nice out there. Lawns are well maintained, trees are taken care of, and even though it is agricultural we take pride in our land and our homes. There is no sewer provision, we are all on septic, and I am concerned if the property would pass a perc test so would there be a lagoon there? A lagoon on a hot summer day, who knows what it is going to bring in. Thank you for your time. Larry DeMoss State Ave, Tonganoxie KS I am in opposition to this. Gary Caldwell th Street, Tonganoxie KS I have lived out there 23 years, my property is the whole southern piece of this property. I have a nice pond. The place is beautiful in my eyes. What is going to happened to the water shed? There is going to have to be a lot of studies going on because there is a lot of water that comes through there. It provides water for three different ponds. Security, whatever goes in here is going to have to have security. They are going to have to put a gate up and lights and it is a shame that you have to do that type of stuff but I want security to be of the utmost. On top of that, that property there has no top soil on it, so you would have to bring top soil in. The cell phone tower is the only reason we are here. That is the only reason people value that property for what it was. Really that is the elephant in the room. Dan Lynch, the way he has plotted it out, they are going to put a driveway right in there. If it goes like he says it is going to ruin my property. I am completely opposed to it. Chairman Rosenthal Is there anyone else who wants to speak in opposition? Is there any additional information to be presented? Jeff Joseph Nothing further at this time Mr. Chairman. 6

7 Joe Herring I just want to say that I completely understand and respect the neighbors concerns on this issue. Mr. Cunningham did say that the Comprehensive Plan doesn t have this zoned for retail but the map up there clearly shows that it does. That is what they are trying to do. At this time there isn t anything tied to it. I am not saying that someone isn t going to come in that requires and SUP or it sells to a developer that wants to put in a business and at that time Planning and Zoning is going to review it and want a plan and if infrastructure is required and it is not there it will have to be brought in. This is solely to bring it to match the Comprehensive Plan and let everything else happen after that. Chairman Rosenthal - The public comment portion of this public hearing is now closed. Are there questions or comments from the members of the Commission? Commissioner Moe Why do we keep hearing this one? He said this is the third time within 6 months? Is it because we allegedly have a new owner? Jeff Joseph It is a different application, we do have a letter from our legal counsel and he reviewed this and indicated that this is to be looked at as a totally different application and that is why we have to hear this case. Chairman Rosenthal Is there any other questions Commissioners? It does fit the comprehensive plan. There is not infrastructure out there as far as sewers or water at this time. Jeff Joseph Correct, that is what staff is concerned about, because it is shown as retail in the Comprehensive Plan, that is why staff is kind of on the fence on this. Although we recommended approval there is a lot of review that will need to be done prior to any development coming in. Chairman Rosenthal If rezoning happens could something come in there before sewer or water is available? Jeff Joseph No, that is why we have the site plan process. That is when we look at all the infrastructure needs. Chairman Rosenthal A couple months ago we had a rezone from residential to commercial in the rural area and it was turned down is that correct. Jeff Joseph Yes, it was turned down. Chairman Rosenthal This is a highway and a different location of course. Jeff Joseph This is a different location and the issue is that the Comprehensive Plan shows it as retail. The 24/40 Study indicates that in the future it would become commercial at some point but we don t know when. Chairman Rosenthal The County does need commercial. Jeff Joseph The problem is that right now we don t have the infrastructure. Chairman Rosenthal Even if we rezoned it they couldn t put something there that required infrastructure without it, they would have to bring that in. Jeff Joseph Correct, that is the site plan process. That is the next step. Chairman Rosenthal Could they have septic s on it? Jeff Joseph It depends on the use, if they are building a house then a septic would be allowed but if it is commercial there would need to be sewer. Chairman Rosenthal If we rezone it to commercial they can t put a house on it, correct? Jeff Joseph They cannot. Chairman Rosenthal So it would have to be sewer? Jeff Joseph It depends on the use. We have had commercial with lagoons before but we don t recommend that. We would want them wait until the sewer gets there, that would be our recommendation. 7

8 Chairman Rosenthal Water too? Jeff Joseph Yes. Commissioner Moe Is this just another way to get around and coming back to us again with the storage tanks? Jeff Joseph I have no idea but that is a possibility. Commissioner Grosdidier Jeff, if the driving range came back could that be done on this with a septic tank? Chairman Rosenthal No the driving range from my understanding would need a Special Use in any zoning district. Commissioner Grosdidier It still could? Chairman Rosenthal Well sure. Commissioner Grosdidier It doesn t preclude a house? Chairman Rosenthal As far as I know, I was involved in that one and that needed a Special Use under any category. Jeff Joseph I have one more issue that I wanted to talk about. The zoning in the County, we have different zonings like B-3, B-2, B-1, if someone wants to rezone it we don t require a site plan at that time. If it is a Planned District then we would require a site plan associated with it. Since it is just the B-3 zoning at this time we cannot require a site plan. If they propose something that is when they have to come up with a site plan and meet all the requirements. It is like a catch 22, which one comes first. Chairman Rosenthal Anytime you do commercial you have to have to submit a site plan, they cannot do anything they want just because it is B-3, and it has to have a site plan. Jeff Joseph Correct, and if staff doesn t agree with the site plan and deny it then it comes to the Planning Commission. To answer you earlier question, a driving range requires a Special Use Permit in all categories. Chairman Rosenthal Is there any further discussion? If not I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Terrien I make a motion that we approve Case DEV Commissioner Grosdidier I will second. Chairman Rosenthal There is a motion on the floor with a second to approve Case DEV Is there any further discussion? We will have a roll call vote. Commissioner Matthews No, basically I don t know if anyone can do anything with this piece of ground that would be acceptable and legal. Commissioner Grosdidier Yes, for the same reason. It hasn t been used since 1941 and that is a Golden Factor and there is probably some relative economic gain and apparently it can t be used for housing etcetera. Commissioner Terrien Yes. Commissioner Box No, for the same reason as Commissioner Matthews. Commissioner Moe No, I just feel that there is something going on behind the scenes and I am not comfortable with it. Commissioner Schwinn Yes. Commissioner Denney No, I voted no the last two times it came before us. There are too many questions in my mind, as staff said; I am also on the fence with this too. I would be more apt to looking at B-1, it is a little less intensive. I will vote no. 8

9 Chairman Rosenthal Yes, I have mixed emotions too, it is in the Comprehensive Plan, the County needs more commercial zoning and it has to start somewhere, but without infrastructure, I am kind of thinking that we might need to wait until the infrastructure gets there and then do it. I do not want to vote against commercial, so I have mixed emotions and we don t have the option of going to a less extensive zoning tonight. It is the only request that they have before us tonight. I am going to vote yes because we need commercial in this area and we can t afford to turn down any commercial zoning in the area. ROLL CALL VOTE 4/4. The vote goes to the County Commission as a vote of 4/4. Chairman Rosenthal The Board of County Commissioners will consider this item on January 7, 2015 at the Leavenworth County Courthouse. Any person wishing to file a protest petition must contact the Planning & Zoning Office. Protest petitions must be filed with Leavenworth County within two weeks of this meeting. To be valid, the protest petition must be signed by owners of 20% of the land area in the notification area. Chairman Rosenthal Case No. DEV Consideration of an application for a Special Use Permit for a Contractor s Yard on a tract of land located in Section 12, Township 11S, Range 21 E of the 6 th P.M. in Leavenworth County, Kansas. Request submitted by Tom Giefer & Chris Gratton. Staff Report: Jillian Ogden Commissioners, this is Case DEV Kansas Heavy Construction a Special Use Permit for a Contractor s Yard. The applicants are Tom Giefer and Chris Gratton, State Avenue, Tonganoxie KS. The property is located on the south side of State Avenue approximately 2400 feet east of 198 th Street. The applicant is requesting renewal of a Special Use Permit for a contractor s yard. Their original Special Use Permit was approved in 2003, which is when the business first started operation at this location. The property was also rezoned to B-3 General Business District at this time. This is for the storage of contracting materials and equipment. The business operations take place out of an existing building on site that is screened from the street by trees and vegetation along the street. There are also existing tree lines along the east and west property lines to separate the business from surrounding buildings and residences. The owners employ up to 12 people. The applicant indicates that vehicles will be entering and exiting the site approximately times per day. The property will be used for the equipment storage and storage of form materials. Various trucks, equipment, and materials are stored outdoors on-site and inside the existing building. One of the business owners lives on-site in an apartment in the equipment storage building. No signage is requested with the Special Use Permit and their narrative indicates that nothing has changed since they applied for their original Special Use Permit in The staff recommends approval of Case No.DEV , Special Use Permit for a Contractor s Yard, with the following conditions: 1. The SUP shall be limited to a period of five (5) years. 2. The business shall be limited to the hours of 7 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday, occasionally exceeding those hours. 3. The SUP shall be limited to twelve (12) employees other than the business owners. 4. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) of $2, The applicant shall adhere to the following memorandums: a. Chuck Magaha Emergency Management, December 1, No construction debris shall be stored or disposed of on-site, unless a separate Special Use Permit is obtained. 9

10 7. The applicant shall maintain existing vegetation and tree lines along the east and west property lines and along the State Avenue for the duration of the Special Use Permit. 8. The applicant shall provide a certificate of general liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 and shall indicate Leavenworth County as the certificate holder prior to commencement of activities on the site. 9. No signage is allowed in the right-of-way. No signage is requested with the SUP. All signage shall comply with Article 25, Sign Regulations of the Leavenworth County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. 10. No on-street parking shall be allowed. 11. This SUP shall be limited to the Narrative submitted with this application on October 22, This SUP shall comply with all local, state, and federal rules and regulations that may be applicable. 13. After approval of this SUP by the Board of County Commissioners all conditions listed shall be adhered to and copies shall be provided to the Planning and Zoning Office within 30 days. Chairman Rosenthal Have there been any complaints? Jillian Ogden There have been no complaints on record. Commissioner Moe This is 13 years from when they started to now. Isn t that kind of off cycle somehow? Jillian Ogden Their previous SUP was approved for 10 years and came due in Commissioner Moe What has been happening for the last 2 years? Jillian Ogden The applicants are here and can answer that question. Chairman Rosenthal Public Works? Trevor Huhn I have nothing further to add. Chairman Rosenthal -Upon opening this public comment portion of this hearing, those of you who wish to speak either for or against this item upon recognition, will give your name and address each time you begin to speak. This is necessary since the public hearing is being recorded. The public comment portion of this hearing is now open. Will the applicant please come forward? Chris Gratton State Ave, Tonganoxie KS. I live at th Street, Tonganoxie KS. We are asking for your consideration to renew our Special Use Permit. Chairman Rosenthal Did you read all 13 requirements and agree to all of them? Chris Gratton Yes we do. I also want to bring up that we failed to renew at renewal time and we thought we would have gotten a renewal notice in the mail and maybe we did or didn t, so we apologize. There was also one comment mentioned about occasionally and what that means. Commissioner Box Does occasionally mean in the evening you might run over? Chris Gratton Occasionally we are going to have guys out late. We are a construction company so during the season we could have longer hours. Commissioner Box Early in the morning also? Chairman Rosenthal We have had no complaints and it has been running like this for 10 plus years. Chris Gratton We try to be good neighbors and keep our place looking good. 10

11 Commissioner Box My point was that maybe we needed to make it 7-7 or longer hours to clear you of that terminology. But that still might not clear you. Commissioner Grosdidier It is more the exception than the rule, normally you don t exceed these hours is that correct? Chris Gratton We do, we are exceeding them during peak season. Chairman Rosenthal If we were going to cover the hours what would we need to adjust them to? Chris Gratton 6:30am-7:00pm. Chairman Rosenthal And you don t work on the weekends? Chris Gratton We might have guys cleaning trucks but we don t have work. Commissioner Grosdidier When someone misses a deadline on renewal do we back date the TIF? Whose fault is that? Jeff Joseph I am not sure who is at fault but we do not. Commissioner Grosdidier I was just checking. Chairman Rosenthal Thank you, we will now hear from those individuals present wishing to speak in favor of the request. We will now hear from those individuals present wishing to speak in opposition of the request. Is there any additional information to be presented? Jeff Joseph Nothing at this time. Chairman Rosenthal The public comment portion of this public hearing is now closed. Are there questions or comments from the members of the Commission? Is there any further discussion? If not I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Schwinn I make a motion that we approve Case DEV I am going to leave the hours the same, I don t see that there have been any complaints running it like it is now. Commissioner Box I will second. Chairman Rosenthal There is a motion on the floor with a second to approve Case DEV with staff recommendations. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Matthews I have a question, it says an application for a Special Use Permit but haven t had any complaints on the business so they have been operating without a permit? It lapsed? And we are basically going to bring them back into the fold? Commissioner Moe He said he had expected to receive a reminder notice and if he did it got missed. Do we typically send out reminders? Jeff Joseph Yes we do. Commissioner Moe It would be different if we had a bunch of complaints. Chairman Rosenthal Do we have any other discussion? We will have a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE Motion is approved 8/0. Chairman Rosenthal The Board of County Commissioners will consider this item on January 7, 2015 at the Leavenworth County Courthouse. Any person wishing to file a protest petition must contact the Planning & Zoning Office. Protest petitions must be filed with Leavenworth County within two weeks of this meeting. To be valid, the protest petition must be signed by owners of 20% of the land area in the notification area. 11

12 Meeting is adjourned at 6:57 pm. 12