Comm. Haase called a 10-minute recess.
Meeting reconvened at 8:35 p.m.
ITEM NO. 8A: ANNEXATION OF 13.3626 ACRES; SOUTHEAST OF LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION, NORTHEAST OF 22ND TERRACE (SLD)
A-10-05-04: Annexation request for approximately 13.3626 acres, located southeast of Lake Estates Subdivision, between E 920 Road and Lake Alvamar. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Lake Estates at Alvamar, LLC, applicant. Chris Earl, Mark A. & Marsha G. Buhler, Yankee Tank Investors, and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 8B: A-1 TO RS-2; 3.6348 ACRES; SOUTHEAST OF LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION, NORTHEAST OF 22ND TERRACE (SLD)
Z-10-50-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 3.6348 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being southeast of Lake Estates Subdivision, between E 920 Road and Lake Alvamar. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Lake Estates at Alvamar, LLC, applicant. Chris Earl, Mark A. & Marsha G. Buhler, Yankee Tank Investors, and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 8C: A-1 TO RM-D; 9.7277 ACRES; SOUTHEAST OF LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION, NORTHEAST OF 22ND TERRACE (SLD)
Z-10-51-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 9.7277 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home) District to RM-D (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being southeast of Lake Estates Subdivision, between E 920 Road and Lake Alvamar. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Lake Estates at Alvamar, LLC, applicant. Chris Earl, Mark A. & Marsha G. Buhler, Yankee Tank Investors, and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 8D: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LAKE ESTATES AT ALVAMAR; NORTHEAST CORNER OF 22ND TERRACE AND LAKE POINTE DRIVE (SLD)
PP-10-26-04: Preliminary Plat for Lake Estates at Alvamar. This proposed single-family and duplex residential subdivision contains approximately 12.2053 acres. The property is generally described as being located southeast of Lake Estates Subdivision, between E 920 Road and Lake Alvamar. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Lake Estates at Alvamar, LLC, applicant. Chris Earl, Mark A. & Marsha G. Buhler, Yankee Tank Investors, and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record.
Items 8A – 8D were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the items, which were all requested to facilitate the proposed residential development of Lake Estates at Alvamar subdivision. The project involved properties contained in multiple approved preliminary plats and attempted to recombine land in a different configuration.
Staff noted the existing County right-of-way and the gravel bus path across private property to the frontage road. Ms. Day pointed out the location of the cul-de-sac proposed as the dividing line between exclusively single-family homes (north side) and mixed single-family and duplex units (south side).
It was discussed that the adjacent subdivisions, The Sanctuary at Alvamar and The Ridge at Alvamar, were approved but not yet recorded.
Ms. Day outlined how the area plan provided in the addendum to the Staff Report designated existing land use recommendations, street alignments and possible/probable locations for local streets. She said a Preliminary Plat under the name Yankee Tank was approved in 1974 as the most comprehensive plan for the overall area. However, other land use decisions had been approved since 1974, so the Yankee Tank plat could not be used as a strict guideline for area development.
Comm. Burress referenced his request at the Study Session that Staff bring “radical design alternatives” to the regular meeting, and asked if the 1974 plat was “the best you could do”? Ms. Day replied that Staff did not attempt to redesign the plat, and pointed out that plat standards had become more strict since the 1974 Yankee Tank plat. The 1974 plat was conceptual in nature and did not take practical concerns like topography and grade into consideration. It was discussed that the 1974 plat was unlikely to be successful today, given actual engineering issues and the presence of existing structures and approved development projects.
It was noted that connectivity on this area would be challenging because of topography. Pedestrian connections were discussed, with Staff agreeing that a pedestrian cut-through to the south from the cul-de-sac would be possible. However, it would be difficult to firmly establish a pedestrian connection to the adjacent neighborhood, since the approved plat for that area did not contain a receiving easement on the adjacent property.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, spoke on behalf of the applicants, noting the applicant was the developer of several adjacent areas. He noted the growing redevelopment pressure in the area and described how adjacent properties would work in conjunction with the subject property.
Mr. Keeney explained how the area plan Peridian Group had created for the larger area would incorporate the four existing estate-sized lots in the center of the subject property. He suggested these four lots would be retained as developed and described building types proposed for the rest of the subject property.
Mr. Keeney spoke about the way the traffic pattern and collector layout in the City’s long-range transportation plan had changed since the 1974 plat. He explained the applicant’s intent for the road system, including landscaping to make it apparent to vehicles when they entered the residential area.
Mr. Keeney responded to questioning that a pedestrian connection to the north was not appropriate. He said that a street connection was challenging enough based on the existing grade.
Regarding pedestrian connection to the south, Mr. Keeney said the development adjacent to the south was designed to feel secure and separate. Landscaping would be used to achieve this feel without actually fencing or gating. The subject property could be required to provide their part of a pedestrian connection, but the property to the south would have to be redesigned to meet that connection point.
Ms. Finger asked Mr. Keeney to point out the pedestrian connection from the southern cul-de-sac to the transit stop.
PUBLIC HEARING – on rezonings only
Francois Henriquez, 1436 E 920 Road, explained the location of his property immediately to the north of the subject property. He agreed with Mr. Keeney’s comments that there were certain rules of planning to observe in this compact area. Mr. Henriquez said the first rule to follow was to remain true to the Comprehensive Plan, and his layman’s reading of the plan indicated very low residential development for the subject area. He said the very high density development(s) already approved for surrounding areas were not consistent with HORIZON 2020 and he did not support the piecemeal way the overall area was being brought into the city with “no respect” to the area plan.
Mr. Henriquez said he was encouraged by Staff’s recommendation for exclusively single-family uses north of 22nd Court, but it was important for the Commission to take into consideration the four large lots in the center of the subject property. He did not agree there was enough room to make an adequate transition between these lots and higher-density development to the south.
Mr. Henriquez said he would like the subject area zoned RS-E to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plat and more palatable as a buffer against development approved for adjacent properties to the south.
Alan Black spoke on behalf of the Land Use Committee for the League of Women Voters, expressing the concerns outlined in the League’s letter about predictability for future areas zoned for multi-family housing. Mr. Black said “single-family attached” units (duplexes with separate ownership) were becoming common, leading new buyers to believe the area is zoned for single-family development when multi-family redevelopment is actually possible.
The League suggested the new RS-3 zoning provided in the new code be applied to the subject property, with a Special Use Permit for attached dwellings. This added some of the protections of single-family zoning.
Lee Rader, 916 N. 1452 Road, referenced her letter, saying she was a new property owner in the area and was preparing to build a new custom home. She expressed excitement at being a large-lot homeowner and concern that she bought her property under the assurance that low-density (“basically 1-acre lots”) were intended for the area. She was worried that higher-density development, especially duplexes, would decrease her own property value.
Ms. Rader was also concerned that E 920 Road, which she said was intended as a local road, would be turned into a collector and would bring a significant amount of additional traffic in front of her property.
Doug Garber, 1445 E 920 Road, spoke in favor of the proposed development to the south of his own land. He said he bought his property 20 years ago with the understanding that the areas would eventually be annexed into the city. He said he was told at that time that the area to the south would be commercially developed, possibly with a shopping mall. Compared to this, he though the proposed down-zoning and residential development was an improvement.
Mr. Garber said it was “imperative” that E 920 Road connect to Clinton Parkway to provide a connection for residents of the Lake Estates #3 development to reach the arterial street. He said he and other area residents needed a way to get from the isolated subdivision to the commercial area.
Staff was asked to explain the intent for a connection to the commercial uses at Clinton Parkway, noting the location of all local streets that would not change in designation.
Mr. Garber said all the original owners of Lake Estates #3 were required to agree to restrictive covenants that would not allow them to protest benefit districts for sewers or roads to bring the area to city standards. He said he and other property owners had been paying for sanitary sewer trunk lines for years and could not use them until connection to city services were made.
Jerry Potter, 910 N. 1452 Road said it already took him 10-15 minutes to get onto the bypass from his house and the additional traffic generated by the proposed development concerned him.
Holly Garber said she had had problems getting onto Clinton Parkway as well. As a realtor, Ms. Garber said it had been her experience that residential development tended to increase the value of existing homes. She said this was especially so in comparison with the impact of commercial development.
Prince Banks spoke as the legal representative for Francios Henriquez, taking about the “profound impact” this proposal would have on a unique subdivision (Lake Estates). He said the existing, secluded large-lot development was a “priceless example of the intent of RS-E zoning.” He said this application proposed placing intense residential development directly against large lots without a suitable buffer.
Mr. Banks suggested applying RS-E zoning to the subject property and using this land to create a suitable buffer, instead of bringing intense uses up to the edge of existing secluded lots.
Mr. Banks said no planning was done in the area and it was being developed as a ‘hodge-podge” with no area plan. He spoke about the creation of a de facto collector out of E 920 Road, which would “expose sparse development to intense traffic.”
Mr. Banks suggested a comprehensive look at the overall area, possibly including the adoption of an area plan before further annexation, platting or intensive zoning was allowed.
It was noted that Lake Estate Drive was shown on the plat to extend as a collector and there were no plans at this time to make this improvement. It was suggested that this could be amended into the CIP, but noted that this did not guarantee the project would ever be funded.
Mr. Banks responded to questioning that RS-1 for the entire parcel would be an improvement over the proposed RS-2. RS-1 zoning for just the northern half would also be an improvement, “but not ideal.”
CLOSING APPLICANT
Mr. Kenney responded to public comments:
· The applicant would be amenable to RS-1 zoning, since all proposed lots would meet RS-1 zoning requirements. However, RS-1 would not be suitable for the entire parcel because the development would have to transition to approved projects on surrounding properties. Duplex uses to the south would supply this transition.
· Any road design other than that shown on the plat would create a cul-de-sac 1.5 miles long, which raised safety concerns.
· The area had been zoned for commercial development for 30 years before the applicant bought the property at commercial land values and had it down-zoned, which the neighbors fought as well.
· The applicant believed that most of the traffic generated by this development would take the improved lake Point Drive to Clinton Parkway, rather than E 920 Road. Lake Point Drive improvements to were scheduled to occur by June 2005.
CLOSING STAFF
Ms. Day noted a correction to the Staff Report for Item 8C, clarifying that Staff recommended approval of rezoning to RS-2 for Lots 1, 2 and 11-14 – all lots on the north side of 22nd Court.
The barricade shown across E 920 Road was proposed by the applicant in response to resident concerns about cut-through traffic into the adjacent neighborhood. However, the applicant did not have the ability to block a public street unless the city chose to vacate right-of-way. Staff did not support this option.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff responded to questioning:
· Staff did not oppose amending the CIP to include collector street improvements to Lake Point Drive
· An area plan for this area would not be possible until the end of 2005 at the soonest.
There was discussion about the League’s concern that RM-D zoning would convert to RS12 with adoption of the new code, and RS12 zoning would allow multi-family uses more intense than duplexes. In order to ensure nothing of higher intensity than duplexes, the Commission would have to:
· Defer the current rezoning request until the new code was adopted;
· Initiate a different rezoning district such as RS3 or RS5
· Direct the applicant to return with a revised preliminary plat showing standard lots for the ultimate desired outcome.
It was established that RS3 zoning would work for the lots in their current configuration, but RS5 zoning would require redesign to create lots of 10,000 square feet minimum. Also, RS5 zoning would allow shared driveways, while RS3 would not.
Staff responded to questioning that the city’s legal department had made a determination that the Commission could initiate rezoning to a zoning district that did not yet exist because it would not be published until the new code was adopted.
Comm. Burress stated he did not want to slow the project unnecessarily. Mr. Keeney replied to questioning that the applicant would be willing to go along with the initiation of RS5 zoning in the spirit of trying to work with the Planning Commission and the address the concerns of the League of Women Voters.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Item 8A
Motioned by Comm. Eichhorn, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the annexation of approximately 13.3626 acres located north of Clinton Parkway and west of Lake Alvamar and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following condition:
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Item 8B
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Vice-Chair Riordan to approve the rezoning of 3.634 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) District to RS-1 (Single-Family Residence) District and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the Lesser Change Table and the findings of fact found in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Item 8C
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm Angino to initiate rezoning for Lake Estates at Alvamar, Lots 15-28 from A-1 (Suburban Agricultural) to RS5 (Single-Family Residential) District and schedule a public hearing for February 2005.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve rezoning of Lake Estates at Alvamar, Lots 1, 2 and 14-11 from A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) to RS-1 (Single-Family Residential) and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the Lesser Change Table and 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.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Angino to table consideration of the rezoning request for Lake Estates at Alvamar, Lots 15-28, from A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) to RM-D (Duplex Residential) to the February 2005 meeting.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Item 8D
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Lawson to approve the Preliminary Plat for Lake Estates at Alvamar, subject to the following conditions:
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to amend the motion on the floor to add a condition for a pedestrian easement to the north, designed per Staff approval.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was noted that the pedestrian easement proposed would lead to a dead end at the private property lines of the existing estate-sized lots. This would encourage pedestrian connection with future redevelopment of the large lots. Staff suggested the land could be reserved for a future pedestrian easement and a condition added for an agreement not to protest a benefit district for future sidewalk improvements. There was discussion about reserving the land and putting funds in escrow for a determined amount of time. It was also suggested that a condition could be added to the Preliminary Plat that this issue be resolved for the Final Plat. Comm. Burress and Comm. Krebs agreed to allow revision to the proposed amendment to the motion to add a condition based on this discussion, provided there was no objection. Comm. Lawson expressed objection and the amendment stood as originally stated.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to amend the motion to add a condition for a pedestrian easement to the north, designed per Staff approval.
Motion failed to carry unanimously, 0-10.
Motion on the floor was to approve the Preliminary Plat for Lake Estates at Alvamar, subject to the conditions presented in the Staff Report.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to amend the motion to add a condition requiring dedication of a pedestrian easement to the north, with funding placed in escrow for 10 years.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Lawson asked who would be required to provide the escrow funds and how an amount would be determined. Comm. Burress said the applicant would be responsible for funds and Staff would determine the amount.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to amend the original motion to add the following condition:
5. Provision of a revised Preliminary Plat dedicating a pedestrian easement extending to the north property line. The applicant shall place in escrow for a period of ten (10) years an amount determined by Staff to fund sidewalk improvements to this easement.
Motion carried 6-4, with Comm.’s Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor. Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Jennings and Lawson and voted in opposition.
Motion on the floor was to approve the Preliminary Plat for Lake Estates at Alvamar, subject to the following amended conditions:
5. Provision of a revised Preliminary Plat dedicating a pedestrian easement extending to the north property line. The applicant shall place in escrow for a period of ten (10) years an amount determined by Staff to fund sidewalk improvements to this easement.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was noted that there would be changes in lot lines with the Final Plat. Comm. Burress said he would support the plat, but stated his concern that this and other projects were being approved piecemeal, without an approved area plan. He felt the entire area could have been designed with better connectivity and he hoped procedures would be put in place to require area planning ahead of development.
Comm. Burress asked to address “loose ends” from the public comment section:
· He said he was convinced that traffic would not increase significantly on E 920 Road, because most vehicles would use the extended Lake Estates Drive once improvements were complete.
· He said the concerns about protecting estate zoning/development were legitimate, but HORIZON 2020 indicated land uses even more intense than those being proposed by this plat.
· Since the Commission is forced to deal with existing conditions and approvals, no decision is going to be ideal and they must make the best of the given situation.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the Preliminary Plat for Lake Estates at Alvamar, subject to the following amended conditions:
5. Provision of a revised Preliminary Plat dedicating a pedestrian easement extending to the north property line. The applicant shall place in escrow for a period of ten (10) years an amount determined by Staff to fund sidewalk improvements to this easement.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
See Misc. Item 3 for initiation of an amendment to the CIP for road improvements to connect Lake View Drive to the South Lawrence Trafficway frontage road.