ITEM NO. 2A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR R L SUBDIVISION; 1201 MONTEREY WAY (JLT)
PP-04-11-04: Preliminary Plat for R L Subdivision. This proposed three-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 0.78 acre. The property is generally described as being located at 1201 Monterey Way. Submitted by Randy Ham for Ron Lawrenz, property owner of record.
ITEM NO. 2B: FINAL PLAT FOR R L SUBDIVISION; 1201 MONTEREY WAY (JLT)
PF-04-15-04: Final Plat for R L Subdivision. This proposed three-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 0.78 acre. The property is generally described as being located at 1201 Monterey Way. Submitted by Randy Ham for Ron Lawrenz, property owner of record.
Items 2A and 2B were discussed simultaneously. Both were pulled from the Consent Agenda.
Comm. Angino explained he pulled this Item from the Consent Agenda to ask Staff if there was a way to protect the “ambiance” of this neighborhood, similar to the efforts being made in Brookcreek, Oread, Pinckney and other neighborhoods.
Mr. Tully responded that this would be possible through the application of a zoning district that would provide the restrictions the neighborhood needed to maintain the elements they wanted to protect. For example, if the neighborhood wanted to maintain larger lots – 1 acre or ½ acre – then the area should be rezoned RS-A or RS-E. This rezoning could be initiated by the neighborhood or the Commission, but it would be advisable to determine which zoning was wanted and how many of the area residents/property owners supported the rezoning.
It was suggested the Commission set a deadline for the neighborhood residents to “sign up”, stating their support of a particular zoning designation. The Commission would then have the ability to initiate the rezoning, thus waiving the application fee.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully showed a map of the subject area, noting which properties in the vicinity had recently split in a similar manner. Based on the number of lots still able to split or plat, the density of the area could increase from 70 to an estimated 120 dwelling units. The City Engineer had reviewed this number and stated in response to Study Session questions that the street system was adequate to handle the potential increase. It was verified that the sewer system built in 2001 touched all the lots and was designed to accommodate such an expansion as well.
It was also verified that the existing curb cut on Monterey Way would be relocated further south and the two new lots would take access only from W. 12th Street.
Staff responded to a Study Session question that only one tree would be lost with the project.
Mr. Tully had discussed with David Corliss the issue of using ‘conservation of neighborhood character’ (per Goal 3 of HORIZON 2020) as a basis for denial. Mr. Corliss indicated it was possible the property owner would have grounds for legal action if the subject property were not treated the same as other properties in the area. Since seven lots had been permitted to split/plat since 1997, including the adjacent property, it would be difficult to avoid a ‘takings’ claim.
It was suggested that, if the Commission felt this type of land use was inappropriate for the area, the zoning designation should be revised to reflect the importance of neighborhood character and a zoning with lower density should be initiated for the neighborhood. It was discussed that the area was already zoned for low density (6 or fewer dwelling units per acre), so a reduction would be to a very low density category (RS-E or RS-A) with a density of 2 or fewer dwelling units per acre.
In
relation to the issue of blasting, it was estimated that a rock bed layer was
approximately 5’ below the subject property. The developer indicted his intent
to construct basements in the two new properties on W. 12th Street,
but believed blasting would not be necessary.
No variances were requested or required for the project as proposed.
Staff was asked at the Study Session to estimate the cost savings to the community of allowing infill vs. fringe development. Mr. Tully explained this was not something the City tracked formally, and noted that the infrastructure – usually constructed at the developer’s expense – was already in place.
Comm. Lawson verified with Staff that the proposal was in accordance with all current regulations and asked if the Commission’s questions were relevant to the issue at hand.
It was established that none of the area properties would be made non-conforming with a rezoning to a very-low-density designation. It was noted that other lot splits or plats could be during this rezoning process.
Comm. Schachter thanked the neighbors for their interest and participation in the process, explaining that their written comments were taken seriously although they were not able to make verbal comment at the meeting. He noted Staff’s explanation that this was an administrative decision and the application should be approved if it met the code requirements.
Comm. Schachter believed the Commission agreed on the importance of recognizing areas that needed protection and referenced the conservation district that would be available in the new code. Until the new code was adopted, the neighbors had the option of initiating alternate (very-low-density) zoning for their own properties.
The Planning Commission recommended to the City Commission that blasting restrictions be increased, although it was pointed out that these regulations were associated with the Fire Code, not the Building Code or Subdivision Regulations. The Commission asked that the minutes reflect their concern about this issue.
Comm. Haase said he would vote against the proposal for reasons that probably should not be considered in an administrative decision, such as blasting concerns and the Golden Factors reference to character of the area. He was concerned that approval for this project would send a message for other properties that the Commission supported splitting and blasting in this area. He closed by saying the Building Code was inadequate to deal with the cumulative effects of blasting.
Understanding a denial of the application would need to be based on administrative review criteria, Comm. Haase suggested the Commission deny the project based on the applicant’s desire to retain the curb cut on Monterey Way. He said the applicant could be advised to return with a revised plan platting the subject property into only two lots, both taking access from W. 12th Street. In that time, the neighborhood would have an opportunity to make their own rezoning application.
Comm. Schachter felt this was still an application of abstract criteria (the Golden Factors) to what should be an administrative decision. He noted that the Commission had set a precedent of allowing existing curb cuts to remain on collectors, even Monterey Way. Chairman Burress agreed with these comments, saying the Commission could not revise their previous interpretation(s) based only on neighborhood concern.
Comm.
Angino countered that, in his opinion, Goal 3 of the Comprehensive Plan allowed
the Commission to deny the application based on neighborhood character. He was
also concerned about the effects of potential blasting with a rock bed 5’ under
the subject property.
Comm. Schachter suggested this project serve as a “wake-up call” for the area residents to work together to change the rules for their neighborhood.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 2A
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Johnson to approve the Preliminary Plat for R L Subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Plat that states, “Property owner will sign an agreement not to protest the formation of benefit district for W. 12th Street”; and
2. Label centerline of W. 12th Street on Preliminary Plat to show that 35’ is half of the total amount of right-of-way.
Motion carried 8-2, with Comm.’s Schachter, Johnson, Burress, Eichhorn, Lawson, Riordan, Jennings and Schenewerk voting in favor and Comm.’s Haase and Angino voting in opposition.
Item 2B
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Lawson to approve the Final Plat for R.L. Subdivision and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
1. 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; and
c. Submittal and approval of a Master Street Tree Plan.
2. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
3. Submittal of public improvement plans (water line and sanitary sewers) to Public Works Department prior to filing of the final plat;
4. Label centerline of W. 12th Street on final plat to show that 35’ is half of the total amount of right-of-way; and
5. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for W. 12th Street.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to forward a recommendation to the City Commission that the City reevaluate the blasting code as soon as possible, considering stricter standards to ensure protection on the area and adjacent properties, especially in areas where significant amounts of rock were involved.
Comm. Lawson asked if anyone had read through the information on blasting that was provided at a recent Study Session. It was established that the current regulations required notification prior to blasting for all property owners within 500 feet of the subject site. Additionally, property owners within 250’ of the site were able to have their foundation inspected at the developers’ expense before and after blasting.
It was discussed that the neighborhood property owners could develop a petition regarding rezoning the entire neighborhood and bring it to the Planning Commission. The Commission could then initiate the rezoning, thus avoiding the application fee. It was recommended the neighborhood determine an exact boundary for their request and get the approval (signatures) of as many property owners as possible within that boundary.
Ms. Finger offered to have Staff send a letter to the neighborhood residents outlining how to submit a petition and noting the submittal deadlines.