LEAVENWORTH COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING January 14, 2015

Transcription

1 Meeting called to order at 6:00 pm LEAVENWORTH COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING January 14, 2015 Members present: Steve Rosenthal-Chairman, Mark Denney-Vice Chairman, Jay Schwinn, James Grosdidier, John Matthews, Louis Box, Chris Raymos, Donald Terrien and Erlys Moe. Members absent: None Staff present: Jeff Joseph-Director, James Kraatz-Senior Planner, Jillian Ogden-Planner, and Stephanie Sloop-Planning Coordinator, Mickey Schwartzkopf-Public Works, Wayne Malnicof-County Surveyor Approval of Minutes: Chairman Rosenthal Do we have a motion of the December minutes? Commissioner Matthews I move that we approve the minutes as written. Commissioner Moe I second. Chairman Rosenthal Is there any discussion? Commissioner Schwinn I think we need to check the time the meeting was adjourned and correct that. Chairman Rosenthal We have a motion on the floor with a second to approve the minutes, checking the time the meeting ended, we will have a roll call vote of members present. ROLL CALL VOTE Motion Carries to Approve 8/0, 1 abstain Secretary s Report: Jeff Joseph Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, we do have one change on the agenda tonight. Item number 7.B. that is on the consent agenda, Case DEV & 074, we would like to pull that out of the consent and we are requesting a continuance of this case to the February Planning Commission Meeting. Chairman Rosenthal Do we need a motion on that? Jeff Joseph Once you approve the agenda you will need to open it up and continue it. Chairman Rosenthal Now onto approval of agenda. So everyone understands, 7.B. will be continued and when we vote on it there will be only one item on the consent agenda, one item being continued, and two items being heard tonight. Do I have a motion? Commissioner Box I move that we approve the agenda. Commissioner Matthews I will second that motion. Chairman Rosenthal We have a motion on the floor with a second to approve the agenda with the changes stated earlier. Is there any discussion? We will have a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE Motion Carries to Approve 9/0 Chairman Rosenthal- Any declarations? Chairman Rosenthal I need to declare that I got a packet from people named Murphy. That would be on Case DEV It is material with a little bit of extra things we discussed before, the same information that was given to us tonight. I received it in the mail; I wanted to declare that. 1

2 Chairman Rosenthal Case No. DEV & 077 Consideration of a Preliminary and Final Plat for Tyler and Jennifer s Playground, a one lot plat on a tract of land located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 12 S, Range 20 E of the P.M. in Leavenworth County, Kansas. Request submitted by Jennifer Kongs and Tyler Gill. Staff Report: Jillian Ogden Good Evening Commissioners, this is Case No. DEV & 077, for Tyler and Jennifer s Playground a Preliminary and Final Plat. The applicants are Jennifer Kongs and Tyler Gill. This property is located on the north side of Linwood Road, west of I-70. It is a 1-lot subdivision, roughly 40-acres. The applicants plan on building a single family home, they are platting it to make it compliant with the regulations. The property owners have requested that the requirement of the storm water drainage report be waived. That is why we have taken it off of the consent docket. This is a technical document traditionally included with all plats. It is a document reviewed by Public Works so they will be able to answer any questions about that you may have. Chairman Rosenthal Public Works? Mickey Schwartzkopf I have nothing at this time. Chairman Rosenthal Surveyor? Wayne Malnicof I have nothing to add. Commissioner Rosenthal Does the applicant wish to speak? Tyler Gill 940 Connecticut Street, Lawrence Kansas. We are simply asking for a waiver of the Storm Water Drainage Report because we purchased 42-acres and are building a single family residence on this land. It does technically meet the requirements of a subdivision; hence the plat and why we are here, but one single family on 42-acres cannot substantially alter the drainage of said property. Thank you. Chairman Rosenthal Thank you sir. Is anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this request? Is anyone here wishing to speak in opposition? Is there any additional information to be presented? Jeff Joseph Nothing at this time. Commissioner Grosdidier On the waiver on the septic system, normally you put in verbiage that when a sewer comes within 660 you are required to tie in. Are we still doing that? Jillian Ogden They are not within 660. Commissioner Grosdidier I understand that, we use to always have that verbiage on septic tanks, am I misunderstanding that? Jeff Joseph Usually if it is within the Urban Growth Area that is when we add that condition, this is not within the Urban Growth Area. Commissioner Grosdidier That is the way it normally is? Okay. So what is this a waiver to then? Just a subdivision? Jillian Ogden Storm Water Drainage Report. Commissioner Grosdidier No, I am talking about number 2, for findings. Jillian Ogden That would allow them to have their own private septic. Jeff Joseph I understand your question, if it is within the Urban Growth Area then if the sewer comes within 660 we require them to tie into the sewer, but if it is outside the boundaries we are still required to tie into a system but we can grant a waiver. 2

3 Commissioner Grosdidier With this waiver, even if a sewer comes by they aren t required to tie into it because they have a waiver. Jeff Joseph If it is outside the boundary it is not a requirement within the regulations. Commissioner Grosdidier These are the same rules we have used before then. Jeff Joseph Yes. Right now all they are asking for is the waiver for the Storm Water Drainage Report. Commissioner Grosdidier Okay, I just didn t understand why it was different. Now explain the Storm Water Drainage Report, what is the purpose of this? Mickey Schwartzkopf The purpose is to show any increase in storm water run-off. Commissioner Grosdidier By putting buildings on the land? Is that why one just doesn t make a difference? If we had a smaller 2-lot division, I mean we do it normally? Mickey Schwartzkopf It is a requirement that we normally follow. Commissioner Raymos What besides one residence going onto 42-acres, is that the compelling reason we are considering waiving this normal requirement? Mickey Schwartzkopf The reason is that the applicant is asking for the waiver. Commissioner Grosdidier So if it was 80-acres and split into 40-acre lots they could still ask for a waiver and we would use the same rational? Mickey Schwartzkopf I feel it is a necessary. It is normally required. Even though it may be negligible it does still produce additional run-off and flooding is an issue that can be contentious. It does remove the County to a certain degree from a certain liability. I do understand to a certain point that it can be an inconvenience for some people. Commissioner Grosdidier But, it would also be an inconvenience if you had an 80-acre lot and had to do it for two. I just want to know what you as Public Works wants? Do you want this or not? Mickey Schwartzkopf We have required this in the past. Commissioner Raymos Basically, 99 % of the applicants this is included in their packet, is that correct? Mickey Schwartzkopf Yes, if everyone could get away with not doing it then they would. Commissioner Grosdidier So you are against condition 8. Mickey Schwartzkopf I recommend that the Storm Water Drainage Report be submitted in accordance with the regulations. Commissioner Grosdidier Staff recommendation 8 says not to have it, am I wrong on that? Mickey Schwartzkopf If there was some confusion here I apologize but we do recommend the report. Chairman Rosenthal Is there anything else? If not I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Grosdidier I move we approve Case DEV & 077, Tyler and Jennifer s Playground with staff recommendations except 8. Chairman Rosenthal Will you put the requirements on the screen please, so your motion is getting rid of condition 8. Commissioner Grosdidier You can get rid of it or you can put a not after shall but then you got a double negative up there. 3

4 Jeff Joseph I would suggest taking it out. Commissioner Grosdidier That is my motion then. Chairman Rosenthal We have a motion on the floor, do I have a second? Commissioner Terrien I will second. Chairman Rosenthal We have a motion on the floor with a second to approve Case DEV & 077 for Preliminary and Final Plat for Tyler and Jennifer s Playground, with staff recommendations removing condition 8, which means a Storm Water Drainage Report will be required. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Schwinn So we are going to require that he gets that report with this motion? Chairman Rosenthal Yes. Commissioner Schwinn So you didn t mean to put recommendation 8 in the staff report? Jeff Joseph If you agreed with the request then that condition is already there but since you don t agree with the request for that waiver you can remove that condition. Chairman Rosenthal We are allowed to make changes, these are just recommendations. Commissioner Raymos There was some ambiguity between Public Works and Planning and Zoning. Chairman Rosenthal The motion on the floor is removing the condition of not requiring it. So if we approve the motion they will have to get the Storm Water Drainage Report. Commissioner Moe Does the applicant understand this? Chairman Rosenthal Do you understand sir what we are making a motion requiring you to have the Storm Water Drainage Report? Tyler Gill I do, can I make additional comments? Chairman Rosenthal Yes. Tyler Gill At this point, we purchased this land with the intention of building a house. All we want to do is move out of the city into the country. After we purchased it Planning and Zoning told us we had to have a plat done. When we purchased the land we had a survey, boundaries marked, and everything set to go, but according to your rulebook we are a subdivision because at some point in time a big piece of land was broken up into smaller pieces. So after some back and forth with Planning and Zoning we followed all your steps and paid out $3,000 to have a plat done and applied for all of this and I feel as though it is not very I don t see how one residence will affect storm water drainage. I feel as though this process has taken a considerable amount of time and effort and money for us to build a house in the country. Chairman Rosenthal What you have to understand is there are a lot of people in the same situation and when we start changing our rules and regs to fit one situation where do we stop changing them. That is what we can t let happen. Do you have anything else? Tyler Gill No. Chairman Rosenthal We have a motion on the floor with a second. Is there any further discussion. Everyone understands that when we vote on this we are voting on it to approve it and require him to get the report. Commissioner Schwinn What does that report cost to get? Mickey Schwartzkopf I do not know the cost of the fee, if I had to make a guess I would guess $500. 4

5 Chairman Rosenthal It is part of the survey isn t it? Wayne Malnicof - It is an engineering study so it is done by a P.E. It would be requiring a professional engineer to do that. Chairman Rosenthal Do you think the cost would be about $500. Wayne Malnicof It would vary, we are talking a larger tract of land than normal. I have seen them go considerably higher. Mickey Schwartzkopf In my opinion this would be a fairly simply engineering calculation they would be providing. Chairman Rosenthal Any further discussion? If not we will have a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE 9/0 Motion Carries to Approve Chairman Rosenthal The Board of County Commissioners will consider this item on January 29, 2015 at the Leavenworth County Courthouse. Chairman Rosenthal Case No. DEV Remanded back from December 4 th Board of County Commissioners Meeting Consideration of an application for an Amendment to Article 19 Table of Uses of the 2006 Leavenworth County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Request submitted by Planning and Zoning Department. Staff Report: Jeff Joseph Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, this is Case No. DEV , proposed amendment to the 2006 Leavenworth County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. I would like to give you a little history on this case during the October Planning Commission Meeting, the Commission suggested two different categories for the Truck Hauling Business, at that time we decided to meet for a work session and discussed the topic further with the different categories. From that work session the Planning Commission decided to develop three different definitions; one definition for Commercial Vehicles, one definition for Truck Hauling Business, and one definition for Truck Terminal. During the work session there was also discussion regarding the size of the vehicles, the 24,000 limited weight and different types of trucks. After the work session the Planning Commission decided to go the route of requiring a Special Use Permit within the Rural Residential District and the B-1 and B-2 categories, with it being an allowed use in the B-3, I-1, I-2, and I-3. When it went back to the Board of County Commissioners, the Board still has a problem with the Special Use Permit within the Rural Residential District, hence they wanted the Planning Commission to review that one more time and that is why it has come back before you tonight. Basically, the main problem is the Special Use Permit category within the Rural Residential District and that is what is holding it up. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them. Chairman Rosenthal We know what the problem is then. Commissioner Grosdidier Jeff, I have a question, this is a public hearing right? Jeff Joseph It is up to you as a board to open it up? Commissioner Grosdidier What is the notification area? Jeff Joseph On this case there is no notification area. Commissioner Grosdidier It is countywide correct? Does the protest petition have to be 20%? Jeff Joseph There is no protest petition for a text amendment. Commissioner Grosdidier It says that on the back of the minutes. Okay that isn t for this case that is for the minutes attached to it. Okay. Commissioner Raymos Is there any input from County Counsel relating to the Forge s concern about possible conflict of interest between these proposals? 5

6 Jeff Joseph I do have a memo from the County Counselor, in the memo he states that the County Resolution address the use of County Roads as a transit route and specifically allows truck traffic to either a destination or a point of origin. That is his view of the Resolution, so there is no conflict. Commissioner Raymos There is no conflict between what we currently have on the books and what is being proposed. Jeff Joseph That is correct. Chairman Rosenthal Are there any questions or comments commissioners? Do we want to open up the public comment portion? If we do I think we need to limit it to new information because we have heard this twice now. Also with a time limit of three minutes. Upon opening the 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 when you begin to speak. This is necessary since the public hearing is being recorded. You will also be limited to three minutes and limited to new information only. The comment portion of this hearing is now open. We will now hear from those individuals wishing to speak in favor of this request. Karl Bardroff th Street, Leavenworth Kansas. This has gone on for about two years, back and forth so I hope I don t repeat anything here. There are businesses like this Countywide that have never been asked to get a permit. I got a permit and did everything by the book and now I am the one up here being scrutinized. My attorney last time showed that there were 20 some trucks just in our local area. I have trucks just across the road from me that are in the same business that I am and no one has said anything about them. There has been a big discrepancy between commercial hauling something as far as agriculture. Anytime that a truck has a commercial tag on it, even if it is hauling for a farmer or not, it could be one farmer that does something for hire from another farmer, that is considered commercial. I can show you statues, it is all DOT regulations. There has been a lot of misconception about this. My understanding has always been with the road I travel on, as long as I have an origin and a destination then I am fine. I have even checked with the Sherriff s department to make sure I was compliant. They would have been writing me tickets by now if I wasn t compliant. There are several businesses that are all over our County and I don t want to throw anyone under the bus and I have had them ask me if they should come in and apply for a permit and I don t know what to tell them because will they have to go through this too? Can they afford to go through this? There are several people who have a lot more trucks than I do that run business in the County and they don t have any type of permit. There are guys who are parked in my area that actually live in Atchison Kansas and they don t have anything and they are driving on Leavenworth County roads and nothing is being said about it. I just don t understand why I have been singled out. I am the one that has had a permit, I have done everything by the book, I pay commercial taxes on everything and I am the one being scrutinized because I have tried to do it right. Thank you. Chairman Rosenthal Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this request? Is there anyone here wishing to speak in opposition to this request? Don Murphy Good Evening Commissioners, I am Don Murphy and I reside at Santa Fe Trail, Leavenworth Kansas. I would like to talk about the definitions a minute. Nobody has talked about those before. Last time when they showed the definitions at the previous meeting you didn t allow public comment at that time. I think the definitions here need a little more homework, they really do. I understand that it is not easy to write good definitions that will stand the test of time and apply in many situations and many different issues. Let s just go ahead and look at the commercial vehicle definition there for a moment if you would please. I want to give you some examples of concerns, and of course we are talking about a County as a whole and no one particular case. It is good definitions for all kinds of cases. This first one I ask, why does it say other than a passenger vehicle? Passenger vehicles are many many times are commercial vehicles. Taxi cabs, rental vehicles are just one example. Almost every business has a passenger vehicle of some type that is used as a commercial vehicle. So again, what is the purpose of this saying other than a passenger vehicle? If it is a passenger vehicle that is strictly a POV then I understand, yes that is not a commercial vehicle but many times passenger vehicles are commercial vehicles. So again, I ask what is the purpose of that particular phrase in there is. It also seems that the word exclusively should be added on the fourth line, commercial vehicles should not include any motor vehicle or motorized equipment used for agricultural purposes adding used exclusively for agricultural purposes makes more sense. Because again, you could have a truck or whatever and it could be an agricultural vehicle strictly one day and the next day it could be doing commercial work. If it is used exclusively for agricultural then it would be an exception to commercial vehicle. The Truck Hauling Business proposed definition. Why is the word container in there on that second line? Containers? Is my time up already? I think I have some good points folks, I really do. Again it needs more homework and there are four or five different things that need pointed out. Susan Murphy Santa Fe Trail, Leavenworth Kansas. I will continue on the definitions. I want to talk about Truck Hauling Business. The definition mentions containers. The word container is a far reaching word and covers a lot of 6

7 different items that could be classified in it, like dumpsters, adler tanks, propane tanks, diesel fuel tanks, gas tanks, these containers are also freight when they are being hauled and when they are stored and then hauled and delivered to a customer. However, the second sentence says excludes storage or the redistribution of cargo, so it seems like those are contradictory sentences. There are potential conflicts between the two parts of this proposed definition. It could contain a legal loophole for containers that are actually freight in many cases. Most importantly, this definition as proposed says a business pertaining to the parking, storage, and maintenance of commercial vehicles. Now do you think a definition for a truck hauling business should say something about hauling or transporting or delivery of freight and cargo? As this is written it looks to me that it would just be involving a commercial vehicle on site and just use the roads. The truck terminal definition puts a lot of emphasis on cargo and freight so it seems to define more of a freight terminal then it defines a truck terminal and the few truck terminal definitions we found put the emphasis on trucks and motor carriers not on freight and cargo and we had previously shared with you the code of federal regulations that says a terminal is any location where commercial motor carriers maintain operating facilities. It seems like there needs to be more attention given to these definitions, I am not sure where they were developed or modeled from but they contain potential conflicts as well as not appearing to meet the purpose of what we are trying to accomplish with this category. We advise to wish you would be cautious and think about these proposed changes a lot more, we don t want to allow administrative glitches to open the door to bad and inconsistent consequences. Thank you very much. Chairman Rosenthal Is there anyone else that wishes to speak in opposition? Is there any additional information to add? Jeff Joseph I have nothing else to add. Chairman Rosenthal The public portion of this hearing is now closed. Are there any questions or comments Commissioners? We have heard this now for the third time, what are your thoughts? Commissioner Grosdidier Why is this being remanded to us again? Chairman Rosenthal Because they didn t like our decisions. Commissioner Schwinn But we have the County Counselor saying that it isn t a conflict. Commissioner Denney Jeff, do you have anything to add? That is my main questions, why do they keep sending it back. Did they give you any guidance or direction? Jeff Joseph From attending the meetings, what I took away from them is the Special Use Permit provision in the Residential District is the reason it continues to be sent back to this board. During the work session we tried to limit that to the size of the vehicles and it didn t work for everyone and as the Planning Commission you decided to keep the Special Use Permit in that Residential category. Commissioner Grosdidier Let me ask you something again, at the work session I think I asked you if someone wanted to have a use that is not covered by a category, I think I said something like parachute repair, you said it could come under the heading of a Small Family Business, is that correct? Jeff Joseph Small Limited Business, yes if the property owner lives on the property and the business is ran by only the owners and no employees then it could be a Small Limited Business. Commissioner Grosdidier We are going to pretend like we are coming up with a new category because there is some kind of need for it, but to me this is a lot like spot zoning, it is spot category making, and from everything we see we have come back almost full circle. Jeff Joseph That is the process. Any citizen can come forward and ask for a business use and it is our job to create that use and see if the Citizens, The Planning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners like it. Commissioner Grosdidier My question on this is, if we didn t even have these categories, we said if someone had a truck by themselves, they could have come under a Small Limited Business, or Small Family Business. Jeff Joseph It depends on the business. Commissioner Grosdidier Before we had these categories it could have come under Small Limited Business? 7

8 Commissioner Schwinn Well before we had Contractor s Yard that is where most of them fell under. Commissioner Grosdidier But I mean even if we didn t have Contractor s Yard, we could have come under Small Limited Business. We don t have to have a category for one truck or two trucks if there are two people in the family doing this. Is that correct? Jeff Joseph The problem is that you are talking about truck traffic so it creates impact to the neighborhood and for a Small Limited Business we have to look at that. Commissioner Grosdidier We do that for every business though. So, I don t know if it is you or Mickey for this question, on the Resolution , in the preamble it says that normal and safe movement of said commercial vehicles, my question is, is this limitation on size of vehicles, I understand it is wear and tear on the roads, and it sounds like it is saying it is also safety, so my question is, are we saying it is an unsafe act to have a vehicle of that size on these prohibited roads? Because I will tell you when I voted for this the last time, in the work session I voted for the two categories, when we voted for it, I could always say we are going to go on a case by case basis and look at it and we could say that I could vote against every one that is not on a road that is acceptable, we do have some roads in the County that you could have a trucking business on. Correct? When you say it is compatible in that there are roads out there that you could have a truck hauling business and still be in compliance with this ordinance but I am going to have a tough time saying later on that somebody here, you or Mickey or someone that is a trained professional is going to say that it is unsafe to have large vehicles, but even though we know it is unsafe or we feel it is unsafe or not optimally safe we do it anyway. So I guess I want a statement from somebody saying, safety is not a concern. Or is it a concern? Mickey Schwartzkopf In the case of this resolution that you brought up, it is my opinion that we have recommended that the applicants get a haul route permit, which we feel would cover the wear and tear on the County Routes that they are using. Commissioner Grosdidier Not wear and tear, I want to address safety. If kids get hurt, if there are more traffic accidents, because I understand that we talked earlier that there is all kinds of traffic on the road, big trucks, but there are exceptions. If a trailer is hauling 17,000 bushels of corn, that may be unsafe and the only thing that maybe more unsafe than a giant trailer hauling 17,000 bushels of corn would be 17 trucks hauling 1,000 bushels of corn each making 17 trips. We make exceptions for agricultural use because we do want farmers to haul grain, I am sure of that, and even though that is a safety issue we are saying that is an exception. The only thing less safe maybe than a big bus going down the road would be 50 cars hauling kids down the road, I understand that. I understand that we want to have a cement truck going to somebodies house. I want a statement that, this is just verbiage, that this is safe movement. Is this a safety issue why we came up with Resolution or is safety not a concern? Because if some kid gets killed by a truck later on and right now we just said we are thinking about safety they are going to come and say the County knew it was unsafe but came up with these rules anyways. Jeff Joseph That is why you have to separate the Resolution from the Special Use Permit. The reason for that is the Resolution is vague. It allows certain exceptions to happen. For a Special Use Permit, it comes before you with all the details of that proposed business use. That way you can make a decision based on the facts. Commissioner Grosdidier But I am saying that here you have preamble, a law, that has three basic exceptions correct? Jeff Joseph That is a separate Resolution. Commissioner Grosdidier We can put a category in, but if we are going to go and put in a Special Use Permit, I can always say that if it isn t one of these roads that isn t on this list I have no problem with it, but Chris said something last time that maybe we cause more problems here trying to get rid of confusion. Jeff Joseph Per the County Counselor, the County Resolution addresses the use of county roads as a transit route and specifically allows truck traffic to either a destination or a point of origin. If it is a Special Use Permit that you are approving there is a destination. Commissioner Schwinn Maybe this will help, I would be okay if on Truck Hauling Business, one of the requirements of a Truck Hauling business was that all vehicles had to be DOT inspected. Commissioner Grosdidier I am assuming they all should be. Commissioner Schwinn But it is a slippery slope, I have looked at the regulations, the State and Federal Regulations, Kansas actually follows the Federal Regulations. If a farmer hauls grain for his neighbor he is a truck hauling business, he is 8

9 no longer agriculture. Even if it is a grain hauling truck, or even if he hauls cattle in his goose neck trailer, tied to his pick-up for his neighbor he is now a truck hauling business. So in that situation he would no longer be protected by saying he is agriculture. So if we do something like make it tighter, let s say we do say its DOT inspected to make sure the trucks themselves are safe then virtually every farmer that hauls anything for a neighbor would have to become DOT inspected. Commissioner Grosdidier If we allow this, since anyone hauling concrete or construction material or Nebraska Furniture Mart bringing stuff in, that already is a to and from point, if we are saying a business is to and from what kind of trucks are excluded from the road? People who are just taking a semi out joyriding? Because it is either going to be agriculture, it is either going to be a to and from business, or a business that exists on one of these roads. No one else is cruising around in a semi that doesn t in one of these three categories. So if these roads aren t safe Jeff Joseph Then again, it is very difficult to enforce the destination or point of origin. You can t just stop the truck and ask them where they are going. It is almost impossible to do. Commissioner Grosdidier We have enforcement issues with every SUP we come up with. Jeff Joseph I am not talking about the Special Use Permit; I am talking about the Resolution. Commissioner Grosdidier But as an SUP issue we still have that problem. Enforcement really isn t our problem here, not us. Jeff Joseph It shouldn t be a problem. If we know they are going to that property then that is okay. Commissioner Schwinn The County Counselor said that is okay. Commissioner Grosdidier If we approve these things every truck going somewhere is going from point A to point B. Jeff Joseph Correct, so if you approving a Special Use Permit you know the truck is going to leave the property to go somewhere and return to that property. They will be using that road. Commissioner Grosdidier And sometimes it is absolutely necessary. I mean a house has to be built for proper planning. Construction material has to go there; there is no way around that absent a helicopter. Kids are going to go to school and the only option for kids going to school is they walk to school or they take privately owned vehicles which would be more traffic and that is an exception. I understand that exception. The other exception is agriculture which I believe the county has to have, moving grain and etcetera, and this is the most safe and efficient way of doing it. But, putting a business where a business doesn t need to be on a road that it doesn t need to be, I don t see how that is good. Jeff Joseph Commissioner, if you are talking about the Resolution, that is something I wasn t involved in. But it was approved by the County Commission and it is a totally separate Resolution. You can t combine that with the Special Use Permit. When you review a Special Use Permit you get all the facts, you get to know the number of trips, the types of trucks, and all those details will be in the staff report and you get to make a recommendation based on those facts. This Resolution is vague; it is open for everybody in the County. Chairman Rosenthal I think that is what we have to remember. We are all basing this on one Special Use Permit and he has a good clean operation but if we make a category where he can do that there are other people who aren t as nice and don t have as good of an operation and they can do it as well as anybody. Anyone who has a similar business in Kansas City could say, Hey I can go find a place in Leavenworth County and get a Special Use Permit and run my business out of there and run my 20 trucks. Commissioner Schwinn No they can t, because they would have to apply for a Special Use Permit and we can and would put stipulations on every business. Chairman Rosenthal Okay, then let s put stipulations in our regulations. Let s make a category and say truck hauling business no more than so many trucks so someone can t come in and say Well they allow truck hauling business, so I am moving my business there. They go through the process and find out oh no they aren t going to approve it then fine, but they can say You let him have it. So you say we aren t going to approve 20 trucks. Are we going to approve 5 trucks? If we approve 5 trucks four times that is 20 trucks, so we now have 20 trucks out there. Let s put a limit on where we need to be somehow. I think the category is too broad. That is my thoughts on it. Just saying a Truck Hauling Business is opening it up to anybody to come in here and we have to prove why we didn t approve it. 9

10 Commissioner Grosdidier And that is why I would be willing to let this go as a Small Family Business or a Small Limited Business, there is a limitation there. Chairman Rosenthal Right, it has to be family members only. Commissioner Denney I see where you are going with that Steve, but the only problem with that is that if we start doing it with that then we need to do it with all of them. Think about Dog Kennels, it is the biggest one, correct me if I am wrong but I don t think we have anything in the regulations that say how many dogs you can have, we look at the Special Use Permit requests on a case by case basis. I am saying if you want to apply for a kennel there is nothing in our regulations that I know of that says you can have a kennel but you can only have 20 dogs. Jeff Joseph If you narrow it down for every single item like that the problem is when someone has 100 acres and they are operating a kennel in the middle of those 100 acres it is a different scenario. Commissioner Denney I am not proposing that we do that. I am saying if we start picking and choosing it is a slippery slope. Chairman Rosenthal Wouldn t that be, if we go back to the kennel example, 20 dogs and they asked for more couldn t they ask for a variance and it be approved because they are on a bigger parcel? Wouldn t that be an exception that we could approve it on? Jeff Joseph So what is the difference between limiting that to 20 and giving them an exception? Everyone can ask for a variance, right? Chairman Rosenthal Yes but they have to have a reason to do it. We wouldn t do it if they were only on 5 acres. Jeff Joseph So there would need to be a limit on acreage then. So 20 dogs within 25 acres. Chairman Rosenthal My thought is, when someone comes in and wants a Special Use Permit they shouldn t have to go through the process to find out we aren t going to approve it because it is too large, it isn t where we want it, and something like that. Maybe that is too much detail, I don t know. Jeff Joseph We did discuss that during the work session and we had a couple of categories with different sizes. Chairman Rosenthal We didn t have numbers, and like the gentleman said there are a lot of these businesses out there, well we need to start regulating them and make sure they aren t out there without a Special Use Permit. They shouldn t be out there without a Special Use Permit. No business should be. I don t know of a sure answer. Jeff Joseph Would you like to have a work session one more time? Commissioner Schwinn I don t think it would help. Commissioner Raymos Who drafted the language for this proposal? Was it all in house? Or is this a hybrid of outside suggestion and in house? Jeff Joseph The definition for Commercial Vehicles was taken out of the Resolution and that was the work of the County Counselor. Commissioner Raymos Then there were no outside influences that had a say in the verbiage in this proposal. Jeff Joseph No Sir. Chairman Rosenthal I am going to request a motion. Commissioner Schwinn I move that we approve Case DEV as written just like we did last time. Commissioner Raymos I will second that. 10

11 Chairman Rosenthal We have a motion on the floor with a second to approve Case DEV , the application of Amendment to Article 19 Table of Uses of the 2006 Leavenworth County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Approving it as written and leaving the Special Use Permit in the Rural Residential zoning category. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Denney I would like to say, and I think that we all know this, this Resolution and Amendment has nothing to do with any Special Use Permits coming before us at any time. This is a totally separate thing and I just want to make sure we all understand that. Commissioner Schwinn This addition will give us the opportunity to hear Special Use Permits on a better level. Commissioner Raymos A more consistent basis. Commissioner Denney This is an amendment that is going to affect us for years to come. Commissioner Schwinn And the deeper restrictions come with each individual Special Use Permit, because each one is different. If we are worried about setting precedence we don t need us. Every Special Use Permit is heard separately and everyone is going to have different variables and it is our job then to listen to each case and say if it is okay or not. We have the County Attorney saying that is what the roads are for. Chairman Rosenthal Any other discussion? Jeff Joseph One more thing, the County Commission is looking for your direction regarding the Special Use Permit provision within the Rural Residential District so if you could have some discussion to give them some hindsight on why you are choosing to allow that in the Rural Residential area. Commissioner Schwinn I think because it gives us an opportunity for the businesses that are out there already or may want to come into the County to be looked at on an individual basis as a Truck Hauling Business instead of as a Contractor s Yard. We have Rural Residential areas that are big parcels of land that it probably makes sense that we would be able to have these uses there. Commissioner Denney For this particular topic, and believe me I am usually for less regulation and not more regulation, but in this particular case I think the regulation is good because it gives us a chance to regulate and monitor this process for some of these businesses that our out there and it isn t just the wild west with some of these trucking companies that we all know are out there and operating. I think this does give us more control and maybe tighten some things up and make it as safe as possible. That is my thoughts. Commissioner Grosdidier I don t think we want any big trucking companies on these roads and I think the Small Limited Business category and Family Business handles this and you have someone who is farmer that has one or two trucks that would come in that category. You gave an example of someone who had 4-5 combines and tractors and I would say that isn t agriculture, if they are combining for the guy down the road. You are right if you have someone who has 3-4 trucks and that many people in your family we have no problem with that. We are hoping you stay small mom and pop or you go to commercial. I think that is what the County Commissioners are hinting at and why they keep sending it back to us. Jeff Joseph Commissioner, I just want to clarify that you are saying Small Limited Business. Commissioner Grosdidier Small Family Business. Jeff Joseph For Small Limited Business it depends on the impact on the road ways and the impact to the residential character. If it varies from the residential character it is not allowed as a Small Limited Business. This use is for small businesses who want to operate within their house. Commissioner Grosdidier How would that be different on Road X than a trucking company allowed on Road X. Jeff Joseph According to the definition they cannot have a structure outside of their home that looks like a commercial structure. It has to be operated inside their house. Commissioner Grosdidier You are in the County and you have a barn, a pole barn with a mower on one end and a tractor trailer on the other end. You see a difference there and I don t. To me if it is Road X and you have that tractor because you are hauling your own grain and you want to haul someone else s you are getting to Small Limited Business. If you are 11

12 making 40% of your income there I have no problem with that. You get 15 trucks on 5-acres I think you have a Truck Hauling Business. You are getting some hay off of it and do some other things I have no problem with that. We are trying to get business but we are also trying to also get business to eventually go to commercial property. I understand there is a part where you have to make that leap where it is tough. Commissioner Denney Jim, that is where these regulations come in and if an applicant comes in and wants 15 trucks we can tell them no. Commissioner Grosdidier Last time I voted for it and I thought we would do it on a case by case basis. Commissioner Denney This just gives us some structure to allow us to continue to make good decisions. Commissioner Schwinn That is the way I see it too. Commissioner Grosdidier But I am pretty sure that if you have a family business and you hire someone to come in one day to drive because your other driver is gone we are not going to be kicking them on that one. We are not going to have that coming back to us. If you make a lot of problems in the neighborhood and it will. That is my two cents worth. I would rather just do it on small limited business as the limiting factor as opposed to a category in here. Chairman Rosenthal Any further discussion. We will have a roll call vote. Commissioner Matthews Yes. Commissioner Grosdidier No, I think the Small Limited Business category would handle 90% of what we are talking about. We still do those on a case by case basis. If it is bigger than that I think it should be on commercial property and we should go to two categories. Commissioner Terrien Yes. Commissioner Raymos Yes. Commissioner Box Yes. Commissioner Moe Yes. Commissioner Schwinn Yes. Commissioner Denney Yes. Chairman Rosenthal No. I am voting no for the same reasons I did before. I am not so sure that Special Use in Residential District couldn t be okay I just think on Truck Hauling Business I just think it needs to be limited or have two categories for it. ROLL CALL VOTE Motion Carries 7/2 to approve. Chairman Rosenthal The Board of County Commissioners will consider this item on January 29, 2015 at the Leavenworth County Courthouse. Meeting is adjourned at 6:59pm. 12