ITEM NO. 11A: RS-2 TO PRD-1; 1503 HASKELL AVENUE (SLD)
Z-08-38-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 5.57 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District to PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development) District. The property is described as being located at 1503 Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Allen Belot for Harold C. and Caroline B. Shepard, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the September meeting.
ITEM NO. 11B: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PARNELL PARK AFFORDABLE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES; 1503 HASKELL AVENUE (SLD)
PDP-08-10-04: Preliminary Development Plan for Parnell Park Affordable Single-Family Homes. This proposed planned residential development contains 35 single-family homes and is approximately 5.57 acres. The property is described as being located at 1503 Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Allen Belot for Harold C. and Caroline B. Shepard, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the September meeting.
Items 11A & 11B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day gave an overview of the proposal, a rezoning and development plan for a new housing project. She described the surrounding area, which was developed with residential uses of varied density. The area had many small lots, resulting in an average density of 5-7 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development would have a density of 5.5 units per acre.
Staff considered this property unique because of its location adjacent to an abandoned railroad right-of-way. The Director of Legal Services felt adequate evidence was provided to support a return of this right-of-way to the applicant, and this tract was a critical element of the project design. The right-of-way provided a significant portion of open space for the development plan, but the city would still be able to use the right-of-way as a public easement for drainage, etc.
It was noted that the plan design included a stubbed right-of-way to the east to provide possible future connection to redevelopment.
Ms. Day explained the development plan included two waiver requests for a reduction in setbacks. She said the plan met the criteria for granting these waivers and the request was not unusual.
Comm. Krebs noted the receipt of multiple comments on the area’s geology and the recent relocation of fill dirt. She asked if this area was suitable for infill development, given its proximity to the floodplain. Staff said soil had been moved as part of an ongoing drainage study. Staff had submitted a report on these changes to the City. Regarding infill development, Ms. Day said the applicant would have to meet building code requirements for building in the floodplain.
It was established that this proposal was not impacted by the City Commission’s direction given the night before for Staff to begin developing a new neighborhood plan for the railroad corridor that abuts several different neighborhoods in east Lawrence.
It was discussed that a violation of the zoning code was considered a misdemeanor, but noted again that this applicant was not responsible for the clearing of the land that had taken place during the drainage project.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Allen Belot spoke on behalf of the applicant, repeating that the applicant was not involved in the clearing of trees. He showed the location of the project and described details of the units and layout. He also explained how the development would dedicate right-of-way to continue the city’s Rails-to-Trails project and provide an easement for the existing sewer line. Right-of-way would also be dedicated to accomplish improvements to surrounding streets.
Mr. Belot said the project would not be impacted by the City Commission’s recent moratorium if the submittal date were honored.
Mr. Belot said the item was deferred in September to allow time for the developer to discuss issues with the area residents. These discussions with the East Lawrence and Brook Creek Neighborhood Associations has resulted in the revised plan being considered tonight.
Questions addressed at the meetings with the neighborhood included:
Comm. Erickson asked if the developer could provide a pedestrian connection from the cul-de-sac to Haskell Avenue. Mr. Belot said future development to the south would provide a more usable connection. There was discussion about where a path could be placed to provide access to the park for residents living east of Haskell Avenue. Mr. Belot noted the applicant’s intent to maintain the single-family character of the area and suggested this would not be accomplished by encouraging (pedestrian) traffic entering from Haskell Avenue.
Comm. Burress referenced a letter from Michael Almon, President of the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association, in which Mr. Almon expressed concern about elements Mr. Belot had verbally committed to that were not shown on the current plan. Mr. Belot said there were some elements he had agreed to include and some he had agreed to study. There was discussion about which elements fell into which category.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Beth Ann Mansur, President of the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association stated that the neighborhood had been given no advance notice that trees would be removed from the subject property.
Ms. Mansur described the variety of income levels and types of residents in the Brook Creek neighborhood. She said the residents would like to retain the area’s mixed character and continue the trend of new residents moving in by choice, rather than economic necessity.
Ms. Mansur said the Brook Creek residents felt there was already enough low cost housing in the area and asked that more quality homes be added to the mix. She said this area had nice views and convenient access to downtown, making it a p rime location for new, quality homes.
According to Ms. Mansur, the applicant had agreed with the neighborhood association to develop 31 lots, with the understanding that, if these larger lots did not sell, the developer could then subdivide into 33 lots at a later date. She also said the applicant had agreed to include a larger “pocket park. These elements were not shown on the current site plan, and the Brook Creek Neighborhood was hesitant to support a project without a site plan all parties agreed on.
Ms. Mansur suggested the rezoning of the property should be approved as the last step in the process, so the neighborhood was not “at the mercy of the good faith of the developer.”
The neighborhood association asked that the new homes be subject to the definition of family restriction, meaning no more than 3 unrelated persons could reside in a single dwelling unit. This would discourage rental of the new homes and encourage owner occupancy.
Ms. Mansur said it was clear that more jobs were coming to southeast Lawrence and it was important to provide “nice homes” for those workers. She noted that government programs were available to help people with lower incomes to attain nicer homes.
Comm. Burress asked if the neighborhood was concerned that the project would lower the property values of existing homes if it were developed as currently presented. Ms. Mansur said the project as proposed would provide “good starter homes” at first and would have a neutral effect on the area. She was concerned, however, that the new houses would soon become “cheap starter homes” and “no one will want them anymore”.
Michael Almon, Chair of the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association Land Use Committee, said he had prepared comments BCNA as land use chair, prepared comments and was also able to answer questions about pedestrian and bicycle access, as well as the underlying geology of the area.
Mr. Almon agreed with the statement that the neighborhood had gotten no notice that trees would be removed from the property. He said the land was “bulldozed in 24 hours without permit or notice…and a TUPR (Temporary Use Permitted upon Review) was obtained after the fact.”
Mr. Almon said Mr. Shepherd had plans for an extensive fill project and that the city had no responsibility for disposing of that soil. He suggested that the original development plan was “ludicrous” and was withdrawn in favor of this new plan, which was “more palatable, but still leaves much to be desired from neighborhood standards.”
Mr. Almon said the applicant’s representative (Mr. Belot) had been willing and gracious in his discussions with the neighborhood, but residents were concerned that agreements made at neighborhood meetings were only verbal and some of those agreements were to explore options, they were not firm commitments. The neighborhood would like these unknown quantities clarified in writing
Mr. Almon outlined which elements the neighborhood would like written as conditions to the Preliminary of Final Development Plan, as described in his letter to the Commission.
It was noted that Staff did not support the resident’s suggestion that the median at the development entrance be reinstated and a left turn added.
Mr. Almon asked why the existing utility easement to Haskell Avenue be used as a pedestrian easement as suggested at the Study Session.
Ed Tato, former President of the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said there were many reasons for not making a sidewalk connection to Haskell Avenue as discussed.
Mr. Tato said he had talked with a banker and an appraiser, and both felt large lots would appraise at a price that would sell in this area. He said he was glad to see the changes already made, but asked the Commission to consider what these new homes would look like in the future.
Mr. Tato said he would like to see sidewalks in front of all the houses (i.e. on both sides of the streets).
It was discussed what traffic impact the new development would have on the area, and suggested that the numbers in the traffic study appeared unrealistically low.
Timothy Moreland, current President of the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said the residents he spoke to were concerned that the neighborhood was “sold” on the project on the basis of affordability, in order to explain the increased density. However, it now appeared that the quality of the units would be decreased to maintain their “affordable” price range. The East Lawrence residents would rather the new development match the mix of the existing neighborhood.
The Commission agreed unanimously to extend the meeting 30 minutes.
Jim Carpenter, Barker Neighborhood Resident, said this sidewalk design mimicked that of another development, The Woods on 19th, in that it ensured connectivity within the neighborhood, but not between this neighborhood and its surrounding area. For this reason, Mr. Carpenter supported the suggested connection to Haskell Avenue.
Mr. Carpenter also supported the suggestion that the new homes be limited to no more than 3 unrelated persons and agreed that left=turn movements in 15th Street were going to be challenging,
Richard Heckler, Brook Creek resident, asked the Commission to deny the rezoning request or condition the residential restrictions as written noted on the development plan and site plan. He stated his support of all of the proposed conditions listed in Michael Almon’s letter.
APPLICANT CLOSING
Mr. Belot said he was duty-bound to disclose information as well as disinformation regarding his discussions with the neighborhood(s). He said he had agreed to look at a market study to see if the market would support this development with 31 units. He found this was not the case and 33 units would be needed for a successful project.
Regarding the placement of sidewalk on both sides of the street, Mr. Belot said this would drive up the cost of the new units. It was noted that dual sidewalks would be required in the new development code.
STAFF CLOSING
Ms. Day addressed the issue of extending the stub street to the abutting property. She said this was a very specific recommendation and was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Without that right-of-way, the development would have to take access to Haskell Avenue.
Regarding the proposed median and left turn land at the development’s entrance, Ms. Day explained that these were public streets and had to be designed to city standards, meaning a median was not permitted. Staff agreed that left turn movements would be challenging, but pointed out that the code would not allow a left turn lane in this location. Furthermore, the traffic study for this project had determined a left turn lane would not be warranted due to the additional traffic created by this development,
It was verified that, if the sidewalk were extended to connect to Haskell Avenue along the easement, the adjacent property owner would be responsible for maintenance and liability on that walkway.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress said this was a good proposal that could be improved. A number of the proposed improvements had to do with creating housing of a higher quality, when the current proposal was for homes of higher quality than the average level of the existing neighborhood.
Comm. Burress supported the residential restrictions on unrelated persons.
Comm. Burress said the Commission could not address the issue of energy efficiency, but he encouraged the public to support the addition of energy efficiency standards to the Building Code.
Comm. Burress said he was particularly concerned about mobility and connectivity. He supported the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of all internal streets and the pedestrian connection to Haskell Avenue. Comm. Burress said he understood the neighborhood concerns about cut-through pedestrian traffic, but connectivity was more important.
It was noted that the majority of the discussion points related to the planned development, not the rezoning request.
Vice-Chairman Riordan commented on one letter received from the public, stating this was a poor example of written communication. He felt the statements in this letter were incorrect, grandiose and hurt the credibility of the writer.
Regarding the project, Vice-Chair Riordan said this was the sincere and proper way to go about a project and he thought this was an excellent plan. Having lived in the Barker neighborhood, Vice-Chair Riordan said cut-through traffic had been a significant problem and he would not support the requirement of a pedestrian easement to Haskell Avenue. In response to questioning he explained that, in his personal experience, vandalism was common in these cut-through areas and safety was an issue. He specifically described the destruction of a private fence and the moving of cinder blocks.
ACTION TAKEN
ITEM 11A
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the rezoning of 5.57 acres (1503 Haskell Avenue) from RS-2 to PRD-1 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance; and
2. Approval of a preliminary development plan prior to the publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
ITEM 11B
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for Parnell Park PRD, subject to revised conditions listed in the Staff Report and with the following added conditions:
7. Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of all internal streets; and
8. A pedestrian access shall be created from Parnell Court to Haskell Avenue along the existing utility easement.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Angino reminded the Commission that dual sidewalks increased the cost of the units when it was not difficult for pedestrians to cross the street to get to the single sidewalk.
Comm. Jennings agreed with Vice-Chair Riordan’s previous comments about negative impacts of cut-through pedestrian traffic and said that requiring the proposed pedestrian easement to Haskell Avenue would dictate the two least desirable lots in the area.
Comm. Burress discussed the trade-off of increasing mobility in exchange for “inviting more strangers” into the area. He said that restricting access might be a gain for the property owners, but it was a loss to all the pedestrian users. He explained that providing multiple access points for “strangers” would reduce the number of outsiders using each point, so more access – not less – was key. He pointed out that a person’s view on mobility depended on their own abilities.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for Parnell Park PRD and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following revised conditions:
Motion carried, 6-3-1, with Comm.’s Burress, Krebs, Erickson, Angino, Haase and Johnson voting in favor. Comm.’s Eichhorn, Jennings and Riordan voted in opposition and Comm. Lawson abstained from the vote.