PC meeting 07/27/05

ITEM NO. 11:           RS-2 TO RM-D; 26.711 ACRES; NORTH OF HARVARD ROAD AND EAST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (SLD)

 

Z-06-35-05:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 26.711 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District to RM-D (Duplex Residential) District.  The property is generally described as being located north of Harvard and east of George Williams Way.  Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for Harvard, L.C, property owner of record. 

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Day introduced the item, noting the provision of a revised map. She described the surrounding zoning and approved projects in vicinity, noting that much of the area was developing residentially and drawing attention to the number of subdivision plats in the area.

 

Staff said the applicant had pointed out that the subject property had been approved previously for RM-1 zoning conditioned upon a final plat.  A final plat was never submitted so the RM-1 zoning was never published.  The property was then approved and platted for single-family development.  Multiple development approvals had been given in the surrounding area, and Staff could no longer support multi-family uses for the subject property.

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, said the applicant admitted he had made a mistake and was trying to correct it.  The applicant’s intent was to provide residential units (duplexes) in a price range to encouraging owner-occupation instead of rental.

 

Mr. Werner noted that multi-family development was once judged appropriate for this area, and if RM-1 zoning was appropriate then RM-D should be as well since it carried a lower density.  He said the market for single-family detached housing was “drying  up” and explained how this development would meet the criteria for low density development.

 

Mr. Werner stated that the applicant had been told all through the development process that April Rain Drive would go through.  He said the proposed configuration provided the best road network and access management.

 

Mr. Werner described the proposed buffers and said the area would be platted with large lots, enabling the design of nice-looking duplexes that would sell for an estimated $185-$225,000 per side.  It was verified that there was no way to ensure that the units would not be divided with a lot split or plat of survey.

 

The Commission expressed concern with the lack of information about transitions and it was noted that there was no way to control entry on George Williams Way, even with single-family development.

 

It was established that Staff discouraged attempting a PRD for this development, because it would require a significant number of waivers and variances.

There was discussion about possible berming, landscaping and other buffering techniques that could be applied to the property.  It was noted that these elements would not be possible along the eastern property line because of setbacks and utility easements.

 

It was discussed that Staff had concern about the amount of multi-family development already existing or approved in the surrounding area.

 

There was discussion about lower-cost single-family housing.  Mr. Werner said this would be difficult because the land would have to be replatted with smaller lots according to the streets and utility easements that were already in place.  This would be expensive and bare lots would run more than $50,000 each.

 

Lawson referenced the Staff Report comment that current area residents purchased their homes based on anticipated development of a certain kind on the subject property.  Mr. Werner said separation was an important element in mitigating the impact of the proposed development on neighboring properties.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

Paula Pethin spoke on behalf of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, outlining the following concerns:

·         Traffic safety related to the proximity of the pedestrian pathway to the elementary school and park.  This concern is increased by the possible failure of W. 6^th Street, which would create significant volume increases on George Williams Way to Harvard and/or Bob Billings Parkway.

·         The neighborhood would like to have single-family homes in this location.  Homes in a lower price range would be desirable but residents understood this may be prohibited by land costs.  The anticipated cost of the proposed units might discourage rental uses, but will not guarantee against this use.

·         The area to the south of the subject area has not yet been developed and those residents will have no say in how the subject area is developed, although it will significantly impact their own area.

 

 

Russ Lang, property owner to north and east, said bought his property based on land use predictions of the subject property as large-lot single-family development.  He said he might have developed his own land differently to be compatible if he had known the subject area would be developed with duplexes.  He referenced Mr. Werner’s reference to the applicant’s “mistake”, saying the surrounding properety owners should not be penalized for the applicant’s error.

 

As a real estate agent, Mr. Lang questioned the applicant’s claims about housing costs and market conditions.  He also suggested that if the current lots were too large to develop affordably, the property should be replatted with smaller lots.

 

 

 

 

Betty Lichtwardt, Lawrence resident, said the new zoning ordinance and development code would provide development alternatives that might be more appropriate for this area and provide options for affordable housing, such as owner-occupied accessory dwellings.  She commented that the new regulations did not include a duplex zoning district.

 

Gwen Kllngenberg, Lawrence resident, testified that her own home and the surrounding homes were within the $100,000 range.  Ms. Klingenberg said the upcoming regulation changes had created a “stampede to buy up land and develop it to the max”, but this was no reason to change precedent and allow multi-family development to surround single-family.

 

Ms. Klingenberg raised several points:

·         The recent CORSIM model run by KDOT identified the need to cut traffic volumes on W. 6^th Street, not increase them by allowing higher density land uses.

·         The applicant appears to suggest that a road may be used as a buffer between uses, which is not an acceptable buffering element.

·         Public input is hampered when zoning is approved before a plan is available, because zoning alone leaves too many unanswered variables.

 

Mark O’Lear, Lawrence resident, said HORIZON 2020 indicated single-family homes as the most appropriate use for the subject area.  He had bought his own home based on the understanding that single-family development would occur here.

 

Mr. O’Lear repeated the concerns expressed about traffic volumes and the safety of children walking in the neighborhood.  He said residents were fearful of the character of duplex uses.

 

Barbara Swinson, Stonecreek resident, said her property was subject to strict covenants and she was distressed by the decrease in her own property value posed by allowing multi-family development to the west.

 

 

Jane Graham, Stoneridge Drive resident, talked about density both north and south of W. 6^th Street.  She said density was already quite high and would increase when all the approved development was in place.  She referenced the concepts of New Urbanism and the importance of creating a pedestrian-friendly environment, saying this ideal was not part of the proposed development.

 

Ms. Graham added her concern that duplexes would be populated with populated by college students, which carried related hazards of dangerous – possibly alcohol-related – driving incidents.

 

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Werner addressed concerns raised by the public:

·         Duplex residents are not being fairly or appropriately depicted.

·         The people who eventually lived in this area would share the same concerns and safety issues raised by existing area residents.

·         This development will increase traffic volumes no matter what, and the difference between single-family and duplex uses is not significant.

·         The Planning Commission approved RM-1 zoning previously (even if it was never published) and the same concerns would have applied when that rezoning was being considered.

·         The proposed zoning code includes an RS-5 zoning district that might be applicable here, but the new district will not be available until the new code is in place.

·         Even if RS-5 zoning were possible, it would involve single-family development at a higher density and bring with it the same concerns.

·         HORIZON 2020 states that duplex uses are appropriate and reasonable for this zoning district.

·         The applicant understands the substantial commitment made by adjacent landowners, specifically Mr. Lang. However, this development is not likely to create a significant impact on April Rain Drive or Stoneridge Drive.  George Williams Way is more apt to be the primary route to access the subject property.

·         Possibly the lots along the northern property line could be developed as single-family to address Mr. Lang’s commitment.

·         The applicant would not object to a requirement for a landscape buffer along George Williams Way.

 

Mr. Werner responded to questioning that the cost per lot of a replat (and required stormwater etc. studies) for single-family uses was unknown, but it would be substantial.  He noted that this property would take on benefit district payments for improvements to sections of George Williams Way and Harvard Road, making the land more expensive.

 

STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS

Staff agreed that it would be inappropriate to make assumptions about duplex residents.

 

It was noted that Longleaf abutted open space and a minor arterial and the area included an odd mix of housing types, created by the piecemeal development of the overall area.

 

Staff commented that a concept plan had been required in advance for the Stonegate development.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Lawson said he was inclined to support Staff’s opinion, based on Staff analysis that was clear and reasonable.  He added that it was unfortunate for the applicant, but existing residents had been given clear indication of how the subject area would be developed (single-family) and this proposal involved a significant change.

 

Burress said he also supported Staff with mixed feelings.  The City needed this kind of housing, but the development concept was not clear.  He stated a hope that the City would someday have more owner-occupied duplex housing and that residents would take responsibility for their property.

 

Ermeling expressed frustration with the continual conflict between development proposals and existing residents.  She said she looked forward to finding ways to resolve disconnects before proposals came before the Commission and agreed that plans should accompany zoning requests.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Haase to deny the rezoning of 26.711 acres from RS-2 to RM-D, based on the analysis provided in the Staff Report.

 

Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.