The Chair called a 3-minute recess. Meeting reconvened at 7:35 p.m.
ITEM NO. 9A: FINAL PLAT FOR HANSCOM-TAPPEN ADDITION (A.K.A. PARNELL PARK PRD); 1503 HASKELL AVENUE (SLD)
PF-12-38-04: Final Plat for Hanscom-Tappen Addition (also known as Parnell Park PRD). This proposed planned residential development contains 30 single-family homes and is approximately 8.020 acres. The property is described as being located at 1503 Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for Parnell Investors, LLC. Harold C. and Caroline B. Shepard are property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 9B: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PARNELL PARK PRD; 1503 HASKELL AVENUE (SLD)
FDP-12-18-04: Final Development Plan for Parnell Park PRD. This proposed planned residential development contains 30 single-family homes and is approximately 8.020 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.
ITEM NO. 9C: RS-2 TO PRD-1; 1.903 ACRES; 1535 HASKELL AVENUE (SLD)
Z-12-54-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 1.93 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District to PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development) District. The property is described as being located at 1535 Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Allen Belot for Parnell Investors, LLC, property owner of record.
ITEM NO. 9D: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PARNELL PARK II SINGLE FAMILY HOMES; 1535 HASKELL AVENUE (SLD)
PDP-12-11-04: Preliminary Development Plan for Parnell Park II Single Family Homes. This proposed planned residential development contains property approved as Parnell Park and additional adjacent property. The project includes 42 single-family homes on approximately 8.96 acres. The property is described as being located at 1503 and 1535 Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Allen Belot for Parnell Investors, LLC, property owner of record.
Items 9A – 9D were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff was asked to consider traffic calming suggestions made by a member of the public during the staff presentation.
Ms. Day summarized the overall project and showed which sections of the larger subject area were associated with each item. She noted that the Preliminary Development Plan retained an existing home in the southeast corner, but reconfigured its access.
Staff noted a section of property within the larger area that was not included in the project because the property owner of that parcel, Mr. Weeks, was not interested in taking part in this project at this time. Mr. Weeks had requested Staff apply a condition requiring the applicant to construct a screening fence around the entire periphery of his own (Weeks) property. Staff had responded by recommending a condition that fencing be placed along the west property line, where a variance was requested to reduce the side yard setback. Ms. Day noted that the variance would not be needed if the Weeks’ property were part of the development.
Ms. Day said another variance was requested to allow a local street (Tappen Way) to intersect with an arterial street (Haskell Avenue). Staff had looked at alternatives to the proposed street design, and had determined the shown configuration concurred with the overall design and was consistent with street and neighborhood design in the area.
Ms. Day spoke about the traffic calming elements suggested by area resident Michael Almon to discourage or (preferably) preclude traffic cutting through the development to avoid the intersection at 15th Street & Haskell Avenue. Staff understood the intent of these suggestions, but recommended alternate wording to allow for investigation of appropriate kinds of calming elements. The two calming devices specifically mentioned by Mr. Almon were considered unsuitable for this location. Staff indicated the need for input from the Public Works Department.
Staff described the surrounding uses as multi-family and public institutional.
It was verified with Staff that on-street parking was possible on both sides of the public streets. It would require action by the Traffic Safety Commission and the City Commission to preclude parking on one or both sides of the streets.
There was additional discussion about traffic calming possibilities, with Staff repeating their concern that the project not be limited at this time to specific kinds of calming devices without input from the City Engineer.
Vice-Chair Riordan asked if there was any evidence beyond Mr. Almon’s letter that traffic calming elements were needed to discourage cut-through traffic. Ms. Day said it was possible some travelers would try to make this movement, but it was difficult to predict how common this would be. This issue was not identified in the traffic study.
Comm. Ermeling asked if on-street parking areas would be used by people using the Rails to Trails path in the area. Staff said the connection to the recreational trail was designed for the residents of the area. Outside users would likely park and access the trail at larger gathering places (trail heads).
Staff recommended in response to questioning that conditions regarding traffic calming devices be placed on the Development Plan and not the plat, since this was a public improvement plan issue that did not change the right-of-way requirements.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Allen Belot spoke on behalf of the applicant, noting he had provided a revised site plan addressing several of the conditions listed in the Staff Report. He said a considerable amount of on-street parking had been included in the plan in response to neighborhood concerns.
Mr. Belot said he did not oppose traffic calming elements being added to the development because it was not the intent to create a path for cut-through traffic. He showed locations of stop signs proposed by the applicant to discourage cut through movements, and it was noted by Staff that the placement of these signs would be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer because these were public streets. Mr. Belot added that calming devices must not impede the travel of emergency vehicles.
Comm. Burress asked how the applicant felt about the section of fencing recommended by Staff in response to concerns from Mr. Weeks. Mr. Belot replied that the applicant strongly objected to this requirement. He showed that there was 190’ of thick vegetation between the subject property and Mr. Weeks’ home along that property line. Mr. Belot said requiring a fence was illogical if one looked into the future of how the entire area would develop once/if the Weeks property were someday incorporated.
Mr. Belot said the applicant had one minor request that the condition requiring Oliver’s Trail be renamed Oliver’s Court be removed. He explained the street names were chosen to tie into the area’s history, and the term “trail” was considered more historic than “court”. Ms. Day responded to questioning that the terms “trail” and “court” designated specific kinds of roads (those that go through and those that do not). It was acknowledged that this convention was not applied with 100% consistency.
PUBLIC HEARING – on items 9C & 9D only
No member of the public spoke on these items.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Angino expressed concern about safety related to specific types of calming devices.
Comm. Burress said the applicant made a good argument for not requiring the fence. He said it was not unreasonable for Mr. Weeks to make the request, but the request did not have to be granted. He said the only reason for granting the request would be in order to compensate Mr. Weeks for creating a negative impact on his property, and Comm. Burress did not think that was the case here.
Comm. Burress spoke about the request that through traffic be disallowed on Tappen Way. He said the only persons harmed by traffic in that location would be the residents of that lot, and they would be aware of the situation when they bought the property. He was also concerned about cutting off or hampering emergency vehicle access.
Comm. Burress said he did not see an overwhelming need for traffic calming elements, but he could see the positive benefits to their placement and he would not object to their addition.
Comm. Burress said he had never understood the convention behind the naming of streets and he had no objection to allowing the name Oliver’s Trail to stand.
Comm. Haase said the requested variance was “clearly prohibited” by the required criteria and it did create the problem of potential cut through traffic. However, he would support the variance because he thought this was a beneficial design. He asked that the Commission consider how to rewrite the variance criteria to take this situation into account, because denial in this case “does not create undue hardship in any way.”
Comm. Lawson said he concurred that common sense should prevail in the consideration of variances. He stated his surprise at how dense the vegetation was between the subject property and Mr. Week’s property and agreed that the need for fencing was questionable.
Mr. Lawson said he was aware of the street naming principles and found them useful when applied correctly. There was discussion about the importance of following such conventions. Staff pointed out that street names were under the final authority of the City Traffic Engineer and it was likely he would make the change suggested by Staff if the Commission did not.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Item 9A
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Lawson to approve the Final Plat for Hanscom-Tappan Addition as presented by Staff.
Motioned by Comm. Ermeling, seconded by Comm. Burress to amend the motion on the floor to strike condition 2.
Motion failed to carry, 3-6, with Comm.’s Ermeling, Burress and Riordan voting in favor. Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Krebs and Lawson voted in opposition. Student Comm. Brown voted in favor.
Motion on the floor was to approve the Final Plat for Hanscom-Tappan Addition and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
Item 9B
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Riordan to approve the Final Development Plan for Parnell Park PRD, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report and the additional condition as drafted by Staff regarding the investigation of traffic calming options.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Lawson asked why condition 7 regarding architectural style was included. Staff said this arose from neighborhood concern about compatibility of housing design. It was noted that this was taken care of by the site plan already submitted.
The wording of the added condition was revised to make it clear that the intent was to determine if any traffic calming devices were needed and, if so, what kind. It did not specifically require the provision of any kind of calming devices at this time.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the Final Development Plan for Parnell Park PRD, subject to the flowing re-revised conditions:
1. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to update general notes with the correct corresponding tracts, lot, and block numbers as shown on the Final Plat;
4. Provision of a revised landscape plan per staff approval prior to recording of the Final Development Plan to assure compatibility with the Final Plat requirements;
5. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to include the following notes:
a. Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained; and
b. Public improvement plans for the sanitary sewers, streets, storm drainage system and waterlines must be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. These improvements must be constructed and complete prior to issuance of building permits. Add a note to the plan stating that building permits will not be issued until the required public improvements are complete, final inspected and accepted by the Public Works Department.
6. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to include the following note: Driveway approach shall be installed with construction of curb;
7. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to add the following note to the “Conditions of Approval” as follows: “The architecture of the new structures shall be in conformance with the existing architectural character of the surrounding area as shown on the Face of the Final Development Plan.”;
8. Provision of sidewalk around bulb of cul-de-sacs to connect interior sidewalks with pedestrian path ways between Lots 11 and 12, Block 2 and Tract C, Block 1; and
9. Initiate discussion of traffic calming for streets within the entire subdivision with City Staff and determine what, if any, calming elements should be included with the submitted public improvement plans.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
Item 9C
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the rezoning of 1.903 acres 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 a rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
Item 9D
Waivers
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
In response to questioning, Staff clarified that waiver approval was discretionary at the Planning Commission level as part of a PUD. Waivers allowed for an adjustment of development requirements to create compatible design.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the 2 waivers as requested, based on the desirability of compatible design between this project and the adjacent property.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Upon later discussion, it was discovered that the Staff Report did not consistently state the distance of the first waiver. A new motion was needed to clarify whether the Commission’s intent was to approve a side yard setback of 15’ or 5’.
It was also noted that the second waiver would not be needed if the Commission wished to remove the fencing requirement.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress and allowed with unanimous consent to reconsider the previous action regarding waivers.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress clarified his intent in the original motion that the side yard setback be reduced to 15’ and the first waiver be eliminated.
There was discussion that the applicant asked for a 5’ side yard setback because the lot was only 42’ wide and a 15’ setback would make the lot an unbuildable. Mr. Belot noted the wide-spread use of a 5’ side yard setback between residential uses in the development and the surrounding area. It was suggested that the intent of the side yard setback was to reduce the impact of adjacent development, which was not a concern here because of the excessive (190’) setback of the adjacent property and its dense vegetation.
Comm. Burress was allowed to re-modify the motion without objection. He asked that the side yard setback be reduced to 5’ and the second waiver be eliminated.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve a waiver to allow a reduction of the peripheral setback from 35’ to 5’ for Lot 3, Block 1 abutting the Weeks property.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
Variance
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Lawson to approve a variance to allow the intersection of a local street (15th Street) with an arterial street (Haskell Avenue).
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Burress provided a possible case for hardship, pointing out that denying access to Haskell Avenue would result in a modified road configuration that would create a cul-de-sac longer than allowed by code.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve a variance to allow the intersection of a local street (15th Street) with an arterial street (Haskell Avenue).
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
Preliminary Development Plan
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Angino 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:
6. Initiate discussion of traffic calming for streets within the entire subdivision with City Staff and determine what, if any, calming elements should be included with the submitted public improvement plans.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
8:50 pm – The meeting was recessed to 5:30 p.m. on February 2, 2005 at the Lawrence Arts Center.