ITEM NO 8: A-1 TO RM-D; 5.21 ACRES; SOUTHEAST OF LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION AND EAST OF E 920 ROAD (SLD)
Z-10-51B-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 5.21 acres from A-1 (Suburban Home) District to RM-D (Multi-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located southeast of Lake Estates Subdivision and east of E 920 Road. Submitted by Peridian Group for Chris Earl, Mark A. & Marsha G. Buhler, Yankee Tank Investors, and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record. This item was tabled by the Planning Commission at their December 15, 2004, meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day clarified that Items 7 & 8 were new and different rezoning proposals for an identical piece of property. The Planning Commission tabled a portion of the original request for RM-D zoning (Item 8) and initiated rezoning (of the same area) to the proposed new RS5 zoning district provided by the anticipated new Development Code. She showed the location of the subject property in comparison with the land involved in Misc. 3.
It was pointed out that the Development Code had been unexpectedly delayed for at least 6 months, making the RS5 zoning initiated in Item 7 impractical to apply.
Staff pointed out that the Planning Commission was the applicant for Item 7, having initiated the request. Staff suggested the Planning Commission could withdraw the item, rather than denying the rezoning.
It was clarified that the applicant did not oppose use of the Lesser Change Table to revise the requested RM-D zoning to RS-2. This would require revised findings of fact and should be conditioned upon annexation and recording of a final plat.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, stood for questions on behalf of the applicant and referred the Commission to his testimony for Misc. 3.
PUBLIC HEARING
Price Banks, attorney-at-law, spoke on behalf of some area residents, saying city zoning districts could not be applied to land that was not within the city limits and the Commission did not have the statutory authority to act on the rezoning requests because the property was not annexed. He stated that the City Commission’s denial of the annexation request made any consideration of rezoning for this property a moot point.
Comm. Burress suggested an alternate theory that, as an advisory body, the Planning Commission had the legal ability to recommend what should be done with the property once it was annexed. Mr. Banks agreed the Commission had “unlimited ability to recommend”, but said this recommendation did not carry the weight of law and the City Commission could ignore it in the future. Comm. Burress asked if the recommendation could be held until annexation took place.
Francois Henriquez, 1436 E 920 Road, said the City Commission’s action made it clear the city did not plan to have further development in this area until there was an area plan.
Mr. Henriquez addressed the road issue, saying a collector street was shown to the west in Transportation 2025. He stated that E 920 Road was inadequate to serve as an alternate collector, having a sharp curve, steep grade and no curbing or guttering. He referenced a presentation on February 17th by KDOT, in which the state expressed concern about the amount of traffic coming in to the area bounded by 6th Street and the SLT. Considering these issues together, he said it was obvious the city did not have a “good game plan for what is going on here”, and that the Planning Commission should follow the City Commission’s direction.
It was established that Mr. Henriquez supported the concept of a road through the Breithaupt property as an alternative to E 920 Road acting as a collector. He felt this was a natural flow for area traffic and asked to make it clear that Lake Estates Drive was a local road, not a collector.
Staff responded to questioning that, in terms of engineering, E 920 Road could be improved to city collector standards, but cautioned the Commission that it would require additional study.
George Paley, 1448 E 920 Road, said he was not anti-development and recognized that development would occur on the subject property. However, he shared the concerns of others that E 920 Road would become a de facto collector street and hoped that, in light of area plan preparation, the Breithaupt’s would change their minds about dedicating the right-of-way needed for an appropriate collector street connection.
APPLICANT CLOSING
Mr. Keeney stated that E 920 Road was designated as a future collector road on the originally approved plat. Since that time, the collector designation was downgraded and the road layout redesigned with Transportation 2025 to better fit existing development. He said that E 920 Road met or came close to meeting all the standards for a collector road, although it was now designated as a local street.
Mr. Keeney spoke about the complications of meeting the expectations of 4 landowners who had differing ideas about when the road would/should go through.
Mr. Paley and Mr. Henriquez were asked to comment on the suggestion that land use was already decided for so much of the overall area that an area plan was not of great benefit.
Mr. Banks said this was the worst place in Lawrence for RM zoning because of bad access permitted without a plan. He said it appeared the applicant was proposing high-density residential for the entire area, when the road network was not suitable for high-density development.
Comm. Ermeling asked what use the area was suited for if not residential, keeping in mind the high price of the land. It was commented that land prices were influenced by the zoning of the subject property, the development of the surrounding property, and many other factors.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Keeney pointed out that much of the surrounding area was zoned commercially and the property owner(s) had paid commercial prices for their land. However, the proposal today was for low-density residential (not high-density), which would generate less traffic than commercial uses.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was established that an area plan would take up to a year to commence, but should not hinder the progress of existing approvals. The City Commission had issued moratoriums in the past, but these typically allowed projects in progress to continue.
It was discussed that, because there was no adopted size requirement for an area plan, the plan could be as large or as small as deemed appropriate. However, these parameters should be set with connectivity in mind and should extend further than a single subdivision. An area plan would study a wide range of topics (topography, soils, roads, infrastructure, public services, existing plats and easements, public and neighborhood concerns preferences) under the guidance of adopted land use documents.
It was verified that a service delivery plan could be done at the same time as an area plan.
The Commission discussed the implications of the City Commission’s denial of the annexation request. The denial of the annexation request was final, but another request could be submitted by the applicant or initiated by the city at any time. In the opinion of the Director of Legal Services on similar projects (annexation with rezonings), the Planning Commission had the ability to take action on the rezoning requests even though the property was not currently within the City limits.
The Commission returned to Misc. 3.
ACTION TAKEN
Misc. 3
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to confirm the Planning Commission’s February 17th reaffirmation of their January 26th action to approve Z-10-50-04 (3.6348 acres A to RS-1) & Z-10-51A-04 (5.0277 acres A to RS-1) and forward these items to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was confirmed that the City Commission initiated an area plan, but did not specifically tie the area plan to these applications. The Planning Commission had the option to make that connection if they chose.
Comm. Burress asked to state for the record a rationale for the reaffirmation. Suggestions included:
It was clarified that the motion on the floor was not meant to include any connection between completion of an area plan and the proposed rezonings.
Comm. Burress asked to separate the issue of closing E 920 Road.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to confirm the Planning Commission’s February 17th reaffirmation of their January 26th action to approve Z-10-50-04 (3.6348 acres A to RS-1) & Z-10-51A-04 (5.0277 acres A to RS-1) and forward these items to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
See later actions on other issues related to Misc. 3
ITEM 7
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to withdraw the request initiated by the Planning Commission because the delays in adopting the new Land Development Code meant RS5 zoning would not be available for implementation in the near future.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
ITEM 8
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress suggested the Planning Commission had a clear position on how they believed things should proceed and a clear action was needed to clarify that position.
The Commission discussed findings of fact to support a motion to approve rezoning to RS-2, based on the Lesser Change Table as proposed by the applicant. It was discussed that all of the findings provided in the Staff Report were applicable with the exception of language regarding suitability. The following additional finding was proposed:
The applicant has shown where RS-2 zoning would be suitable for the area.
It was established that no position on the proposed sensor gate could be tied to the rezoning.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to approve Z-10-51B-04, the rezoning of 5.21 acres from A-1 to RS-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the Lesser Change Table and the findings of fact as discussed. Approval was subject to the following conditions:
1. Annexation of the subject property prior to publication of the zoning ordinance; and
2. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously 9-0.
MISC. 3 – Related Items
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress referenced the City Commission’s direction to consider closing E 920 Road. He said the applicant’s proposal for a sensory activated gate was interesting, but he would normally oppose it because it did not address all the concerns. Emergencies that would require access through the barricade would not always involve typical emergency vehicles that would be able to operate the sensors to get through the gate. Also the gate concept went against the basic principle of connectivity.
Comm. Jennings said he would support the gate proposal only if its removal were tied to a specific action, such as annexation of the property to the north and street improvements to the road. Until the road was improved to city standards, he said the chip and seal surface of E 920 Road would not withstand construction traffic.
Comm. Ermeling asked if the gate could be conditioned to state that it would be removed if the area plan revealed it was no longer needed.
It was established that the applicant anticipated being responsible for maintenance of the sensor gate.
Comm. Burress suggested it was not necessary to take action. The record of their discussion met the City Commission’s direction to consider the issue. It was suggested that the obligation to consider an area plan was similarly met through reference to the evening’s discussions.
Chairman Haase called a 5-minute recess.