PC meeting 06/22/05
ITEM NO 13A: A TO RS-2; 4.9 ACRES; SOUTH OF W. 6TH STREET & WEST OF STONECREEK DRIVE (EXTENDED) (SLD)
Z-03-19-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 4.9 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located south of 6th Street and west of Stonecreek Drive (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for MS Construction Co., Inc., and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record. This item was deferred by the applicant from the 3/23/05 Planning Commission meeting.
PC meeting 06/22/05
ITEM NO 13B: A TO RM-1; 7.4 ACRES; SOUTH OF W. 6TH STREET & WEST OF STONECREEK DRIVE (EXTENDED) (SLD)
Z-03-20-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 7.4 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located south of 6th Street and west of Stonecreek Drive (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for MS Construction Co., Inc., and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record. This item was deferred by the applicant from the 3/23/05 Planning Commission meeting.
PC meeting 06/22/05
ITEM NO 13C: A TO RM-2; 4.2 ACRES; SOUTH OF W. 6TH STREET & WEST OF STONECREEK DRIVE (EXTENDED) (SLD)
Z-03-21-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 4.2acres from A (Agricultural) District to RM-2 (Residence-Office) District. The property is generally described as being located south of 6th Street and west of Stonecreek Drive (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for MS Construction Co., Inc., and Alvamar, Inc, property owners of record. This item was deferred by the applicant from the 3/23/05 Planning Commission meeting.
PC meeting 06/22/05
ITEM NO. 13D: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FOXCHASE AT 6TH & STONERIDGE; SOUTH OF W. 6TH STREET & WEST OF STONECREEK DRIVE (EXTENDED) (SLD)
PP-01-02-05: Revised Preliminary Plat of Fox Chase at 6th and Stoneridge. This proposed 16-lot mixed residential subdivision contains approximately 14.139 acres. The property is generally described as being located south of 6th Street and west of Stonecreek Drive (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA for MS Construction Co., Inc., and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record. This item was deferred by the applicant from the 3/23/05 Planning Commission meeting.
Items 13A – 13D were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Stogsdill explained the layout of the multiple rezoning requests and noted that the Preliminary Plat included a cul-de-sac with single-family lots that would have single access point to Stoneridge Drive.
Staff recommended approval of the RS-2 (Item 13A) and RM-1 (Item 13B) rezonings as presented and use of the Lesser Change Table to approve PRD-2 zoning instead of RM-1 (Item 13C). This change would not require significant changes to the Preliminary Plat, so Staff recommended approval of the plat with minor revisions outlined in the Staff Report to reflect the modification to the multi-family rezoning.
Ms. Stogsdill noted that the Staff Report discussed the use of RM-1 as a transition zoning between the existing and proposed single-family developments. She referenced communications expressing concern about this transition design, as well as about the impact on traffic and stormwater runoff of the proposed amount of multi-family development. According to Staff, the plat had been modified to address the stormwater concerns and had been approved by the City Stormwater Engineer. It was verified that this meant Mr. Voigt was comfortable that the revised plat met the Stormwater Ordinance requirements and the proposal would not have significant negative impacts on surrounding development.
Staff spoke about the League’s suggestion that the Commission use the Lesser Change Table to approve PRD-1 instead of RM-1 zoning, with a maximum density of 7 dwelling units per acre. It was noted that the Lesser Change Table would also allow PRD-2 zoning, allowing up to 12 units per acre, which was similar to the density being requested. Ms. Stogsdill stated Staff’s opinion that RM-1 was a suitable transition zone and was used as such throughout Lawrence. Staff was also of the opinion that the width and depth of the proposed RM-1 zoned area was adequate to serve transition needs. Staff did not oppose PRD zoning per se, but noted that this was not the applicant’s request.
It was established that, with all conventional zoning districts as requested, the multi-family aspect of the project would go through the site planning process and the planning Commission would see the proposal again only through the Final Plat. If PRD zoning were chosen, the Planning Commission would see the final Development plan and Final Plat and would have an opportunity to apply controls over building massing, building type and transition tools.
It was noted that several questions had been raised about the safety hazard posed by the drainage retention pond, not from runoff but from the open channel that children may be tempted to play in. Ms. Stogsdill said the treatment of the drainage channel would be dealt with in the site plan and final development plan.
It was asked what tools the Commission would have to control safety issues under PRD zoning. Ms. Stogsdill said PRD zoning would require another appearance before the Planning Commission. The Commission might choose to require additional greenspace around the drainage area, noting that this area is already required by the Stormwater Ordinance. There was general discussion about the stormwater detention requirements.
Burress said he needed “expert testimony” beyond that of Planning Staff. He asked if it would be appropriate to defer the items and direct Planning Staff to request that Mr. Voigt address specific questions. Lawson noted that engineering professionals designed the stormwater detention design and Mr. Voigt had already given his professional opinion by signing off on the revised Preliminary Plat
Burress asked if Mr. Voigt was able, under the current Stormwater Ordinance to require the applicant to correct for existing drainage problems downstream from the subject property. Staff replied that Mr. Voigt’s review involved the entire watershed of which this property was a part.
Ms. Stogsdill responded to questioning that the 6th Street modeling done by KDOT was done with the requested densities in mind.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He gave the history of the project, explaining where the project had begun and what modifications had been made in response to issues raised in several meetings with area residents. Changes included the inclusion of less multi-family uses along Stoneridge Drive, but the applicant still felt that single-family uses along the highway were not appropriate and multi-family development would provide a more suitable buffer
Mr. Werner pointed out that only 3 acres of the subject property was actually developable ground – the rest was dedicated as right-of-way and easements.
Mr. Werner said the applicant’s biggest opposition to the suggestion of PRD zoning was that it “cut apart” what the applicant saw as a single project. Also, it was his understanding that the City was trying to move away from the use of PRD zoning. Mr. Werner responded to questioning that the use of PRD-1 & PRD-2 zoning was preferable to denial, but he did not think it was necessary. He asked what the Commission hoped to accomplish with PRD zoning or what concerns were driving this consideration (density, stormwater, etc.).
Mr. Werner addressed the concern about potentially 3-story buildings. He said this trend was “over”. Third-floor units did not rent well so developers were not pushing to build them.
Mr. Werner said the applicant had shown his willingness to work with the neighborhood. He had not previously heard about concerns regarding access to the drainage area but he was willing to address it.
Burress asked if the applicant was of the opinion that, if the water in the area was already draining too fast, it was the responsibility of this project to correct that existing problem. Mr. Werner said “yes”, because the project would have to prove it met certain stormwater criteria.
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, also spoke on behalf of the applicant, saying any discussion or conditioning related to stormwater facilities was redundant because the project would face review Stormwater Engineer and the Public Works Department and would have to meet the Stormwater Ordinance criteria.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mark Builder spoke on behalf of a number of area residents, expressing appreciation for the chance to voice their concerns. Mr. Builder said the applicant had met with area residents a number of times, but it was obvious by the number of residents present tonight that an adequate compromise had not been reached.
Mr. Builder said the residents were still concerned about additional traffic, believing that the single access point proposed would be found inadequate and another access would be opened into their neighborhood.
Mr. Builder outlined additional concerns:
· Use and density of transition areas
· Location of detention area
· Placement of apartment units at the highest point of the subject property, effectively adding a story to the building
· Addition of more townhomes when the vacancy rate in Lawrence appears high already
· Potential for wide-spread multi-family development adjacent to existing RS-2
· Height and exact location of buildings
· Location, design and safety of drainage elements
· Protection for the character of the neighborhood
Mr. Builder said Mr. Werner stated at one point that he “hated duplexes” and would “never build them”, but there were now duplexes shown on the plan. He said the final neighborhood meeting with the developer had not ended well and the residents felt threatened by Mr. Werner’s statement that “you really won’t like what comes next.”
Attention was given to photographs of flooding incidents after the recent heavy rain. It was noted that this level of flooding was taken place without the proposed development upstream.
Veronica Howard, explained she owned one of the properties that backed onto the “difficult drainage area”. She suggested the construction of a cul-de-sac with homes to effectively block Stonecreek Drive Street from being opened in the future. Burress asked if she would be satisfied with a development plan that did not show the street, meaning one could not be built. Ms. Howard said she did not care how it was accomplished, she just wanted to make sure the street would never be opened to allow cut through traffic in the existing neighborhood.
Ms. Howard echoed Mr. Builder’s concern that the plan was not complete, so the neighborhood did not really know what was being proposed in terms of building type and layout.
Kevin Loas, reiterated the concern that the single exit design with a development of this density would create an exceptional amount of traffic existing onto Stoneridge Drive and a heavy burden on the 6th Street intersection.
Carrie Munsy, President of the League of Women Voters, referenced the League’s letter outlining continued concerns about transitional zoning between single-family and multi-family development. The League found in interesting that neighborhood frequently wanted to know what a project was going to look like (street design, building type and location, etc.) and there was no way to accomplish this with conventional zoning. The additional planning required with PRD zoning provided some comfort for the neighbors.
Ms. Munsy said the issue of transition was a frequent issue and the League hoped the City would find a long-term solution.
Betty Lichtwardt spoke about the lack of predictability in conventional zoning districts. She said incompatibility of building scale was often what concerned people about transition uses and explained how building size may be controlled in conventional zoning districts by restricting lot size (smaller lots = smaller buildings because of required setbacks and height restrictions).
APPLICANT CLOSING
Mr. Werner addressed some of the concerns expressed:
· If RS-2 and RM-D zoning are approved, no detention pond will be required.
· The existing property is vacant ground that will all go through the public improvement plan process.
· There is not enough information yet to accurately predict traffic patterns. However, the applicant does not think it is realistic to think traffic will funnel to the southeast.
· Allowing this project gets Stoneridge Drive built at the developer’s expense.
· The applicant has no desire or intent to open Stonecreek Drive Street and is vacating right-of-way on that stubbed street with this plat.
· The applicant has no desire or intent to construct 4-story buildings as part of this project.
Mr. Werner asked to clarify his statements to the neighborhood regarding duplexes. He said he had been referring to the frequency and ease with which duplex units become rental property, with individual ownership and no clear management entity to deal with for complaints. He said apartment projects with single management and ownership were often a better fit.
Mr. Werner said the League’s reference to Canyon Court was a bad example and pointed out that Canyon Court was 2-stories and developed as a PRD-2. He referenced another project in which this same developer did not want to open a street (Eisenhower Drive) but was required to by the Public Works Department.
He expressed concern that the applicant would face the same questions again when the new code was adopted and repeated his understanding that the City was trying to move away from PRD zoning.
Mr. Werner responded to questions:
· The entire project would contain approximately 150-160 dwelling units.
· It would not be economically advisable to construct 4-story apartment buildings with elevators (ex. Villa Niche)
· Drainage plans have not been provided yet because the project is not at the site plan stage. It is not an attempt by the developer to skip this important information.
STAFF CLOSING
Ms. Stogsdill addresses several issues:
· The TIS was postponed because accurate traffic counts are not possible in the current situation (ongoing street improvements??)
· A drainage study will be required as standard practice and will look at downstream conditions as well as the entire watershed.
· The Preliminary Plat does proposed to vacate right-of-way at the stubbed end of Stonecreek Drive.
· There has been extensive discussion at Staff level about the number of units that may be adequately served by a single access point. A TIS may show that more internal circulation is needed, but this decision has not been made.
· A number of collector streets will intersect 6th Street, providing multiple avenues to disperse traffic. It is anticipated that access management for 6th Street west of Wakarusa Drive will be better than the pattern east of Wakarusa Drive.
Ms. Stogsdill verified that, if a TIS showed that more access points were needed for this development, additional access would not be allowed onto 6th Street and would likely have to occur on Stonecreek Drive.
Staff described options for applying PRD zoning, noting that the Commission may want to add conditions to specifically address massing and bulk. It was clarified that the zoning would be conditional upon a development plan and would not be published until a Preliminary Development Plan was approved.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Riordan asked the Commission to focus initial discussion on the possibility of using the Lesser Change Table to apply PRD zoning.
Burress suggested a single PRD with two sections and a density restriction of 12 dwelling units per acre to eliminate concerns about transition. He also suggested adding a condition to limit buildings to 2 stories in keeping with the applicant’s stated intent and to reassure the neighborhood.
Burress said it would be nice if the Commission could guarantee that Stonecreek Drive would not be connected, but he did not think that was possible. Unless density was restricted further, more access points would be needed. Speaking of restricting density, he said the Comprehensive Plan identified this area for multi-family uses and he agreed that single-family homes were not appropriate along 6th Street.
Regarding drainage, Burress expressed concern at the claim that this issue would be handled through the regulations at the site plan and/or development plan stage. He said there were existing drainage problems all over town that were not being addressed by the current regulations. He said he would like the opinion of a “neutral expert”, but he did trust that the City Stormwater Engineer would voice opposition of he had significant concerns about the project.
Burress indicated his intent to make a motion that would combine the area identified in Items 13B & 13C into a single PRD.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 13A
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Haase to approve the rezoning of 4.9 acres from A to RS-2 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 condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, with Student Commissioner Wright also voting in favor.
Items 13B & 13C
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Ermeling to apply the Lesser Change Table to approve rezoning of approximately 10.6 acres from A to PRD-2, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following revised conditions:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance;
2. Approval of a preliminary development plan prior to publication of the zoning ordinance;
3. Density is limited to 12 dwelling units per net acre for the area identified in Item 13B; and
4. No building in the Planned Residential Development may exceed 2 stories.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Ermeling commented that she had seen many examples of buildings in excess working well even adjacent to streets or single-family development with the right design approaches. She suggested a strict limit on building height would limit the developer from exploring these design options. Burress replied that he wanted to restrict building height because this was the highest topographical point in the neighborhood.
Eichhorn asked if the City should simply eliminate conventional zoning districts instead of making developers “guess” what design alternative would be required. Krebs responded that the City was aware of the problem and she though the Design Standards Committee would provide more guidance for both applicants and review bodies.
Krebs expressed concern about the level of density and traffic generation, commenting that the Comprehensive Plan discussed this area in the text but land use maps did not indicate an intent for development this far west. She said the City continued to allow residential development when there were many existing residential vacancies. She said it was not possible to settle these issues tonight, but the use of PRD zoning would help to deal with the issues raised.
Jennings stated that “everyone wants higher density”, but not in their own neighborhood and this lead to sprawl. He added that the Commission tended to be “liberal with other people’s money”, limiting the developer’s ability to built to suit the market.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Eichhorn to amend the motion on the floor to remove the condition limiting building height and encourage the applicant to explore alternatives that will allow taller buildings to mix appropriately with the neighborhood.
Motion carried 8-2, with Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor. Burress and Harris voted in opposition, as did Student Commissioner Wright.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was verified with Burress that his intent in the original motion was to permit 15 dwelling units per net acre on the portion of the proposed PRD identified in Item 13C.
Mr. Werner responded to questioning that the applicant would be amenable to the single large PRD as proposed.
ACTION TAKEN
Amended motion on the floor was to apply the Lesser Change Table to approve the use of the table to approve rezoning of approximately 10.6 acres from A to PRD-2, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following re- revised conditions:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance;
2. Approval of a preliminary development plan prior to publication of the zoning ordinance; and
3. Density is limited to 12 dwelling units per net acre for the area identified in Item 13B.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, with Student Commissioner Wright also voting in favor.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was established that the changes made by the previous action would not necessitate significant changes to the Preliminary Plat.
Staff drew attention to the revised conditions provided for the Preliminary Plat in tonight’s communications.
Item 13D
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the Preliminary Plat for Foxchase at 6th & Stoneridge, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised preliminary plat to included
a. A note on the face of the Preliminary Plat specifically stating that direct access to W. 6th Street is prohibited; and, that access for Lots 1 and 2 shall be shared;
b. A note that individual access to Stoneridge Drive shall be prohibited;
2. Execution of an agreement that precludes development of Lot 1 and 2 (the Multi-family) lots until the completion of Stoneridge Drive, including intersection improvements with W. 6th Street; and
3. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for street, sidewalk/recreation path and intersection improvements for Stoneridge Drive and the intersection of Stoneridge Drive with W. 6th Street.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0, with Student Commissioner Wright also voting in favor.