February 17, 2009 PC

MINUTES, 2/17/09

Call to Order: 6:05 by Jeff Robertson
Roll call:
Present: Kimber Richter, Jeff Robertson, Betty Corel, Darby Lohrding, Mary Jane Hoffer
Absent: Steve Cretsinger, Paul Maline
Visitors: Matt Gough, Don Fuston, Carla Anderson, Shirley Winter, A.K. Winter, Elsie

Matt Gough presented the rezoning request again. He stated that the rezoning request does not include plans for requesting tax breaks or other public incentives.

Carla Anderson stated that they are opposed to the rezoning request due to the noise and potential new business development that the rezoning might permit.

Shirley Winter is concerned with lack of water – in the future, water will be a big issue. Don Fuston stated that Kansas will have a water shortage. Rural Water District #6 has a contract with Clinton Lake that ends in 2019. The District has told Corporate Woods they can have 1 meter and under 2 million gallons per year. Corporate Woods has made no formal request for water from the District. The only other source of water is Perry Lake. Rural Water District #6 can not provide fire protection for Corporate Woods – it doesn’t have enough water, and the existing water pressure will not support a fire hydrant.

Matt Grough discussed options for alternative administrative arrangements to ensure the land will be used for the stated purpose. These included a site plan which will lock the use in until a new site plan is approved by city/county staff, or a conditioned site plan that would require public hearing for changing the site plan. The applicant will present the rezoning request to the City/County Planning Commission in March.

Darby motioned, and Kim seconded that we recommend the Douglas County/Lawrence Planning Commission deny the rezoning request as submitted, due to concerns about future land use/development activities not included in the current proposal but allowed under B-2 zoning guidelines. This motion included the comment that if there were conditions placed on a new or revised rezoning request that limited the site development/activities to the proposed uses, we would be in favor of it. This passed 3-1.