Lawrence Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department

Memo

To:        Lawrence Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission

From:   Planning Staff

Date:   April 1, 2004

Re:      Agenda Item 3A:  PP-01-02-04; Revised Preliminary Plat of Stonegate IV Subdivision and

           Agenda Item 3B:  FP-01-05-04; Revised Final Plat of Stonegate IV Subdivision

 

 

Staff met with the applicant’s representative, Tim Herndon, and with a representative of the property owner, Doug Stephens, on March 4, 2004.

 

Staff concurred that the subject property was challenging and there were several existing conditions that limit development options.  The limitations on development options and redesign of the subdivision include:

 

§         Limitations on design and layout of the subdivision based on the ridge which traverses the western ¼ to ½ of the subdivision in a southwest to northeast direction;

§         Associated with the above constraint, the maximum driveway slope acceptable to the developer/consultant in the design and layout of the lots along the ridge line;

§         Maximum street gradients that the city engineer would find acceptable for Monterey Way and the subdivision’s interior street intersection with Monterey Way along the western boundary of the subdivision;

§         Limitations placed on different design scenarios by the market range of the lots being designed, marketed and planned for by the developer/consultant;

§         Compatibility and integration of the Stonegate IV subdivision design with the existing platted and developed streets and lots to the east and north. Of specific importance is the defined alignment of Monterey Way based on the two “known” or given points of Monterey Way at the north end of the subdivision and the intersection of Monterey Way at Peterson Road;

§         The desire to continue the existing land use pattern typified by the conventional single-family detached  homes that make up the existing neighborhood character (instead of investigating a different pattern of zoning such as cluster development or terrace lots); and

§         The diversity in neighborhood development that these types of lots would provide in response to specific buyers - individuals, empty-nesters, or those without the need for large back yards (such as young family households).

 

Given this discussion, staff revised their frame of reference and alternatives for consideration were discussed.  However, no acceptable alternative was found other than the proposed subdivision design and specifically the proposed street layout.  Implementation of this design was discussed, with staff recommending the plan identify those portions of the two-tiered, double-frontage lots that were developable at a slope of 3:1 or less (areas where the existing or proposed gradient would exceed a 33% slope).

 

Staff’s primary concerns centered on the design of this subdivision in relation to:

§         lot orientation – a series of double-frontage lots fronting onto a second set of double-frontage lots;

§         the relationship of individual lots & streets to existing and proposed gradients (slopes);

§         the use of the double-frontage lots for traditional neighborhood development (single-family detached residences); and

§         the ability of the subdivision design to encourage/facilitate increased security with a “Neighborhood Watch” type of resident interaction

 

SUMMARY

Based on staff’s continued discussions with the applicant and his representative, the existing development and topography of the subject area significantly limit the feasible subdivision design options. In staff’s opinion, the proposed subdivision plat is the most appropriate of these options. 

 

The development potential of lots in this subdivision was assessed specifically in regard to the steep slopes and the need to identify where slopes in excess of 30% fall on each of the double frontage lots.  This assessment also considered the compatibility of the subdivision’s design with the existing neighborhood and street/lot layout and design. The applicant pointed out that the row of double-frontage lots accessing the west side of Wild Plum Drive could function similarly to the many cul-de-sac enclaves within the existing neighborhood, creating a sub-area of the neighborhood for individuals of similar interests and site configurations.

 

This memo reiterates staff’s focus on the review of this subdivision’s design (both at the preliminary and final plat levels), based on its conformance with the design standards in Chapter 21.  It is important that development of this subdivision include the construction and connection of Monterey Way to the existing stub to the northwest (Grand Vista Drive) and the arterial street (Peterson Road) to the south. 

 

Copies of the previous staff reports, which recommended denial or deferral of the project, will be attached to this memo only as background information. Staff is prepared at this time to support a recommendation for approval of the final plat, contingent upon the execution of an agreement between the city and the developer that final occupancy of individual lots will not be granted until Monterey Way is improved and open to public travel.

 

Preliminary Plat Staff Recommendation:  Staff recommends approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat.

Final Plat Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Final Plat and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

 

1.      Approval of a revised preliminary plat;

2.      Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a.      Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the Final Plat for filing;

b.      Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;

c.      Provision of a master street tree plan;

d.      Provision of street sign fees; and

e.      Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2;

3.      Execution of the following agreements:

a.      Temporary Utility Agreement; and

b.      Agreement stating no building permits shall be issued until Monterey Way is constructed and accepted by the City;

4.      Submittal of public improvement plans to the City Public Works Department prior to filing of the Final Plat for streets, sidewalks, water and wastewater improvements;

5.      Provision of a revised Final Plat to include:

a.      MEBO’s for all lots adjacent to a drainage easement;

b.      Note on the face of the plat stating. “Soils investigations shall be performed before primary structures are erected on lots with slopes greater than 3:1, or on lots with non-engineered fill greater than 12 inches. A soils engineer licensed by the State of Kansas shall perform investigations, and a report of the investigation shall be submitted to the City of Lawrence Codes Enforcement Division of the Neighborhood Resources Department. Other lots may be required to be investigated where excavation reveals indications of unsuitable conditions”; and

c.      Note on the face of the plat stating, “No building permits shall be issued until Monterey Way is constructed and accepted by the City.”