PC meeting minutes 08/24/05

ITEM NO 15A:          M1-A TO RS-2; 8.0 ACRES; NORTH OF 31ST STREET AND EAST OF HASKELL AVENUE (LAP)

 

Z-06-36-05:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately eight acres from M-1A (Light Industrial) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District.  The property is generally described as being located north of 31st Street and east of Haskell Avenue.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Mary’s Lake Properties, L.L.C., property owner of record.   This item was deferred from the July Planning Commission meeting.

 

PC meeting minutes 08/24/05

ITEM NO 15B:          M1-A TO RS-2; 2.09 ACRES; NORTH OF 31ST STREET AND EAST OF HASKELL AVENUE (LAP)

 

Z-06-37-05:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 2.09 acres from M-1A (Light Industrial) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District.  The property is generally described as being located north of 31st Street and east of Haskell Avenue.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Mary’s Lake Properties, L.L.C., property owner of record.  This item was deferred from the July Planning Commission meeting.

 

PC meeting minutes 08/24/05

ITEM NO 15C:          PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MARY’S LAKE ADDITION; NORTH OF 31ST STREET AND EAST OF HASKELL AVENUE (LAP)

 

PP-06-12-05:  Preliminary Plat for Mary’s Lake Addition.  The property is generally described as being located north of 31st Street and east of Haskell Avenue.  This proposed residential subdivision contains approximately 15.98 acres.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Mary’s Lake Properties, L.L.C., property owner of record.  This item was deferred from the July Planning Commission meeting.

 

Items 15A – 15C were discussed simultaneously.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Pool introduced the items, two rezonings and a plat for an undeveloped section of heavily wooded land.  The development proposed 41 single-family homes and the conveyance of a tract of land to the City for an extension of the Prairie Park Nature Area.  The City was conveying Lots 38 & 39 to the applicant. 

 

Two variances were requested as part of the plat:

1.      Allow a cul-de-sac in excess of 1000 feet (1184 feet requested) Staff recommended approval; and

2.      Allow a lot depth that did not meet the required minimum for Lot 1. Staff recommended denial.

 

The Staff Report mentioned a third potential variance to preclude a mid-block pedestrian easement.  Staff said a variance was not needed.  The intent of Parks & Recreation Director Fred DeVictor could be achieved by installing a north-west fence between the development and the adjacent parkland.

 

 

Ms. Pool said resolution of sanitary sewer issues was in progress and requirements would be applied as a condition of Final Plat approval.

 

Staff recommended approval of all three items, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Reports.

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  Mr. Herndon said the applicant was generally in agreement with the conditions proposed by Staff but had comments regarding plat details.

 

Mr. Herndon described the evolution of the plat leading to design of the cul-de-sac in excess of 1000 feet as shown and noted Staff’s recommendation for approval of this variance.

 

Regarding Staff’s recommended denial of the lot depth variance, Mr. Herndon showed how a conforming lot could be placed within the confines of the proposed Lot 1.  By this reasoning, Lot 1 as proposed was larger than the code minimum and bringing the lot into conformance would actually make it smaller. 

 

Mr. Herndon noted that Staff requested a 20’ landscape easement along the west side of the property, finding this an adequate transition and buffer to adjacent uses.

 

Haase said cul-de-sac length was often discussed only in terms of emergency service access.  He said road maintenance was another germane consideration, since cul-de-sacs should hold no more than 24 units according to civil engineers.  Cul-de-sacs with more than 24 units had to support higher trip generation numbers and thus faced elevated road maintenance needs.

 

Mr. Herndon said there were many opinions and sources of information about the best development practices, but the Code of the City of Lawrence did not consider cul-de-sac length according to housing numbers.  The Code also provided a variance procedure for circumstances that met the intent of applicable standards.  He said this request was reviewed by Planning, Public Works and Fire & Medical, and no opposition was expressed about the proposed cul-de-sac length.

 

Burress said he did not think the requested variance for lot depth strictly met the criteria, but he would like to think of a way to allow the lot configuration as proposed without need to grant a variance. 

 

PUBLIC HEARING

Fred DeVictor, Parks & Recreation Director, explained the department had worked for several years to put together the acreage (Prairie Park) adjacent to this development.  This was a unique natural environment that needed special considerations to preserve it, in its urban setting.  This was the reasoning behind the requested fencing and pedestrian path restrictions that were reflected in the Staff Report. 

 

Meeting extended to 11:30 p.m.

 

The Commission discussed fencing options to allow pedestrian access to 31st Street but not into the parkland.  One option discussed was acquisition of the entire plat area by the City for park purposes.  Mr. DeVictor, in response to the Commission’s inquiry, said the Parks & Recreation Department would strongly support the City’s acquisition of the area surrounding the parkland, but there was simply not enough available funding to do that.

 

Greg Hickam, area resident, referenced his letter to the Commission, saying it might seem odd because he was a real estate agent, but he would not like to see more residential development in this area.  He said the surrounding area provided critical animal habitat appreciated by the community. 

 

Mr. Hickam noted the proximity of the proposed residential use to existing industrial uses, saying these were not “noxious” industrial uses but a 20’ separation would seem small for residents.

 

Mr. Hickam also spoke about existing traffic conditions at the subdivision’s intersection with Haskell, and asked the Commission to recognize the existing congestion and imagine the addition that traffic generated by this development would create.

 

Mr. Hickam said he understood and did not challenge the importance of the City’s parkland acquisition. However he questioned whether the subject property was suitable for development at the density proposed and if this project would have as little impact as stated by the applicant.

 

CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Herndon pointed out that existing single-family residential development was already adjacent to the industrial parcel to the north.  He noted that the proposed residential development would have far less impact on the adjacent parkland than industrial uses possible under the existing zoning. 

 

Mr. Herndon said this project would result in the maximum build-out of the subject area.  This meant there was no concern about future redevelopment increasing density or traffic impacts.  He also noted that the proposed number of lots was low enough that a full traffic impact study had not been required.

 

Staff had no closing comments.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Ermeling said site visits showed that this was not a low density area and she did not see how this development would not add to existing conditions.  She had concerns with traffic safety at existing volumes and, if public acquisition of the land was not a viable option, she would like to see development of a lower density than proposed.

 

Jennings said the proposed density and RS-2 matched that of existing residential development in the surrounding area.  He said this conformity was necessary to make the resulting homes marketable in this neighborhood.  He noted that the existing industrial zoning carried higher land values/prices than the proposed RS-2 zoning.  He also noted that the existing industrial zoning backed up to (on the north) existing RS-2 zoning.

 

Haase asked if the City had exhausted every possibility for obtaining the area for parkland and said this should be a top priority.  It was discussed that the City had adjusted a number of financial commitments to complete the acquisition of the portion of land proposed with this project.  Mr. DeVictor said a limited range of additional funding may be pursued but those sources would not allow the purchase of a much larger section of land.

 

Staff responded to questioning that, in their professional opinion, the proposed 20’ landscape buffer between the subject property and adjacent uses to the west would provide an adequate visual barrier.

 

 

 

ACTIONS TAKEN

Item 15A

Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Krebs to approve the rezoning of 8.0 acres from M1-A to RS-2 and forwarding 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.

 

Motion carried 6-3, with Burress, Eichhorn, Harris, Jennings, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor.  Haase, Erickson and Ermeling voted in opposition.

 

Item 15A

Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Krebs to approve the rezoning of 2.09 acres from M1-A to RS-2 and forwarding 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.

 

Motion carried 6-3, with Burress, Eichhorn, Harris, Jennings, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor.  Haase, Erickson and Ermeling voted in opposition.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Erickson said she would like to have sidewalks provided on both sides of the local streets, although she understood that was not yet an adopted requirement.  She also said she would like pedestrians to have access to 31st Street, even if access to the parkland was restricted.  Staff explained the reasoning behind the proposed pedestrian path network and said there was no immediate recourse to address Erickson’s concerns.

 

Burress suggested an alternate interpretation of the language regarding lot depth, explaining that “mean depth” could be calculated using an infinite number of measurements.  The code did not literally state the mean depth had to be calculated using the property boundaries.  Using the alternate measuring method, Burress suggested the Commission find that no lot depth variance was needed for Lot 1.  It was discussed that code language should be modified so only one interpretation, not a number of interpretations, was possible.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Burress, seconded by Krebs to overturn Staff’s interpretation of the code regarding lot depth requirements and determine that no variance is required for Lot 1.

 

          Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

 

Meeting extended 10 minutes.

 

Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Jennings to approve the variance to allow a cul-de-sac 1184’ in length.

 

 

 

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Haase said this issue continued to raise the question of whether the Commission took seriously the regulations on cul-de-sac length.  If this was not the case, the matter should be dealt with at a policy level.


Jennings said the cul-de-sac length had been given de facto approval by the City Commission when the Governing Body approved the plat layout with the parkland acquisition.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to approve the variance to allow a cul-de-sac 1184’ in length.

 

Motion failed, 4-5, with Eichhorn, Krebs, Jennings and Riordan voting in favor.  Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase and Harris voted in opposition.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

In discussion of the alternatives left to the Commission upon denying the cul-de-sac length variance, several points were established:

·         Action on a plat is required within 60 days so deferral was not an option.

·         Without the cul-de-sac variance, the plat cannot proceed without significant modifications that will require design changes resulting in a new plat.

·         A new plat without the variance would meet the criteria for substantial change and would not be subject to the 12 month resubmittal waiting period.  (It was further discussed that the 12-month criteria does not apply to plats.)

·         Burress indicated his intent to push for the provision of sidewalks on both sides of local streets.

·         The two rezonings recommended for approval (Items 15A & 15B) were conditioned upon approval of a plat that now faces denial.

 

Mr. Herndon was allowed to clarify the applicant’s position, stating that denial of the cul-de-sac variance would result in a plat so “grossly out of context for this neighborhood” that it would “threaten [parkland] negotiations with the City.”  Haase said this was a political issue beyond the scope of the Planning Commission.  He said the applicant’s arguments would be more relevant at the City Commission level.  It was noted that variances and preliminary plats do not typically go forward to the City Commission, however, the Codes do allow a process to do this.  The applicant was provided with information about requesting a de novo hearing. 

 

Meeting extended 10 minutes.

ACTION TAKEN

Item 15C

Motioned by Burress, seconded by Haase to deny the Preliminary Plat for Mary’s Lake Addition, based on the following finding of fact:

 

1.      The plat, as proposed, requires a variance for cul-de-sac length that has been denied.

 

          Motion carried 5-4, with Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase and Harris voting in favor.  Eichhorn, Krebs and Riordan voted in opposition.