PC meeting minutes 09/26/05 & 09/28/05
ITEM NO 1: FINAL PLAT FOR STONERIDGE EAST; SOUTHEAST CORNER OF W. 6TH & STONERIDGE DRIVE (EXTENDED) (SLD)
PF-08-28-05: Final Plat for Stoneridge East. This proposed residential subdivision contains 14.716 acres, and includes 13 single-family lots and one multi-family lot. The property is located at the southeast corner of W. 6th Street and Stoneridge Drive (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A. for MS Construction Co., Inc., property owner of record.
Pulled from Consent by Tim Herndon on behalf of applicant.
APPLICANT PRESNETATION
Tim Herdon Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant saying there was no objection to condition 2 as revised. However, the applicant would like to discuss condition 1 regarding a wastewater downstream analysis. It was understood that, the way this condition was worded, the Final Plat would not go forward until this analysis was submitted and approved.
Phil Struible, Landplan Engineering, explained the applicant would like condition 1 modified to reflect AP76, the adopted City policy regarding wastewater downstream analyses. Mr. Struble said the current condition was vague and did not provide clear guidance about submittal and review of the required analysis. He stated the applicant’s request that AP76 be referenced in this condition to provide this guidance. Mr. Struble said the applicant did not object to the requirement for analysis, but wanted it to be regulated according to understood City regulations.
Mr. Struble responded to questioning that the recent information about the inadequacy of the City’s wastewater system was a “nuclear explosion” to the development community. He said there were questions about how and why this new information had appeared so suddenly in the last few months with no warning in recent years.
Burress commented that it was true the information should have been discovered much sooner. However, if it was indeed the case that the City’s wastewater capacity was breached, the only way to deal with it was to stop building. Mr. Struble said the community would need to work together to find a solution to the problems.
Mr. Stuble responded to questioning that, to his understanding, modifying condition 1 as he proposed would not allow the development to begin construction until answers were found to the wastewater issues.
There was discussion about the anticipated wastewater data from Wade & Associates. Staff noted that the consultants were working on a study of an area from Iowa Street north of 6th Street to the SLT. This area was relevant to a number of items on tonight’s agenda. It was verified that there was currently no consultant assigned to study other areas of the City.
It was anticipated that the consultant’s data would provide more specific flow information than the numbers generated in 2003 and would answer questions about plant capacity and conveyance capacity.
Mr. Struble suggested specific wording for condition 2: “Submittal of downstream analysis shall be based upon AP76 of the City of Lawrence.” He said this language tied back to specific KDHE standards and provided a “finish line” for the downstream analysis that he felt Staff’s language did not.
Ms. Finger explained the reasons for Staff recommended conditions as presented:
· The language proposed was developed in conjunction with the City Manager’s Office and the Utilities Department and was agreed upon as the best way to address all existing issues.
· This language is based on the Subdivision Regulations statement that a downstream analysis must be provided and approved and must multiple factors into consideration as defined in the Code.
· This text is intended to avoid giving the developer false assurance that all they would need form this point was acceptance of easements and rights-of-way.
· This text is also meant to make clear to the City Commission that the project should not be considered “acceptable” when it appeared in their agenda.
· All parties must understand that there is some expectation that this property will not be able to be served with wastewater sewer systems at this time.
It was clarified that staff did not necessarily oppose the language proposed by the applicant, but this text had not been reviewed and agreed upon by all City Departments and it was unknown whether those departments would accept the change.
There was consensus on the need for a downstream study. The applicant continued to state that a clear reference to AP76 was needed to give them guidance as to how to proceed with the study.
Staff pointed out that AP76 stated that the downstream analysis extended to the point where the impact of the subject development was 10% or less of the total flow. This may prove to be inadequate and the City wanted to retain the ability to require a more extensive study if it was deemed necessary. Mr. Struble said the City always had that authority and the applicant would not oppose this requirement if it were found necessary in the future.
The Commission discussed deferring the item to Wednesday to allow additional discussion between the applicant and Staff. Staff said it was not likely that any new information would come out of additional discussions but agreed to ask City Engineers to attend on Wednesday to speak about the City’s position or to provide input on Mr. Struble’s proposed language.
Eichhorn said eventual wastewater sewer failures were predicted all over the City although no visible failures were present today. He said development should keep moving forward as well as possible with the understanding that all parties knew this was a huge issue.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Haase expressed surprise that no City Engineers were present to speak to this item and suggested the Commission was being asked to make a legislative decision. There was discussion about approving the plat referencing both 21-706d and AP76 and allow the City Commission to “make the call”. Staff pointed out that AP76 was not within the Planning Commission’s purview.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Eichhorn to defer the item to the Wednesday meeting and request City Staff representatives attend to explain their position.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Burress said he would likely support the City’s position if Staff representatives (engineers) were present on Wednesday to explain the reasoning behind their recommendation. If no City representatives were present to provide additional information, he would be more likely to side with the applicant.
Haase said the intent of Staff appeared to be to preclude any development of magnitude to go forward until more information was available about the City’s wastewater sewer capacity. Until this information was gathered, Staff was not able to make a proper recommendation.
It was discussed that data was being complied only for the KR2 (Kansas River 2) basin. The projects on tonight’s agenda were in the Baldwin Creek basin (BC1 & BC2) that was not currently being studied by Wade & Associates. It was questioned why the consultant was not directed to study all basins, since capacity problems had been identified all over the City.
There was additional discussion about the relationship between the overall Subdivision Regulations and AP76. It was verified that the developer’s concern with the proposed conditions was that, without reference to AP76, they had no clear direction about how far to extend their downstream analysis, what City official would review the analysis, and what basis would be used for review. Ms. Finger said the Commission could recommend a change to specify the City Engineer would review the study (if City Utilities Department is considered too vague). She said other Staff representatives would have the same information on Wednesday as was presented tonight regarding the extent and method of review for the study.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor as to defer the item to the Wednesday meeting and request City Staff representatives attend to explain their position.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
09/28/05
STAFF PRESENTATION
Utilities Engineer Philip Ciesielski was present to address the issue of the predicted City-wide wastewater sewer failures and how these concerns may impact development. Mr. Ciesielski said the primary point of concern was in the northwest area of the City, specifically the KR-2 sub-basin.
Wastewater sewer capacities were designed according to many factors, including development and population growth estimates identified in the City’s Master Plan. It had recently come to public attention that the amount of approved development in the KR-2 sub-basin area already exceeded development expectations and potential sewer failures were anticipated within a few years.
Mr. Ciesielski showed graphics defining the boundaries of the KR-2 basin and the number of single-family and duplex building permits issued for that area since 2000, which was the base year for the Master Plan. The amount of growth already permitted in the KR-2 basin (approximately 2600 dwelling units) was significantly beyond the Master Plan estimations for 2010 (1700 dwelling units). In addition to approved dwellings, this basin also contained a parcel of platted land that had not yet been issued a building permit but could eventually add up to 400 dwelling units.
It was clarified that that City Staff’s concerns about potential sewer failure were focused downstream before the flow hit the lift station at 5th & Kentucky Streets. It was discussed that developers were not given enough notice of imminent problems and that the information was an immediate, not incremental, discovery.
It was noted that today’s concerns were the result of past planning done without adequate caution and asked if today’s Staff recommendations were overly cautious as a result. Staff replied this could not be easily answered until more information was available, hopefully by the end of the year.
Burress said developers did not want to overload the City’s wastewater capacity, but they needed a clear process with reliable time limits. Mr. Struble said AP76 was a step in this direction. It was suggested that developers be allowed to follow AP76 for now as a test of its suitability for today’s wastewater situation. If AP 76 was found inadequate, there could be discussion in the future about how to improve regulations.
Dave Wagner, Assistant Director-Wastewater, said City Code Section 21-706d was typically applied in conjunction with AP76. Mr. Wagner said he would like a chance to review Mr. Struble’s proposed language with other Staff Departments to consider how this would impact plat requirements and whether all departments were reasonably satisfied that this wording provided adequate protection against overloading the existing wastewater system. There was discussion about deferring the item until October to allow for additional Staff review as described.
Mr. Ciesielski responded to questioning that moderate rain falls would be needed to study peak flow conditions and that this type of rainfall is typically seen in the Fall in this area.
Lawson asked if it were possible the 2003 Black & Veatch data may be found to be too conservative and the current wastewater sewer situation less serious than now supposed. Mr. Ciesielski said this was a possibility, although the 2003 numbers were as accurate as they could have been at that time, based on the type of studies that were ordered.
There was discussion about the estimated cost of various kinds of plans, as well as the parties that would cooperate in the preparation of these plans.
Haase asked if funds from other projects could be reallocated to finance sewer upgrades sooner than their scheduled 2015 date if the new information showed improvements were needed “right away.” Staff said this may be possible but they did not want to commit to that path before full information was available. It would be up to the City Commission to decide whether to re-prioritize the sewer upgrades if information showed that improvements were not needed immediately.
Krebs pointed out that, even if approved by the Planning Commission, no developments would get past the City Commission without an approved wastewater impact study, and those studies were unlikely to receive approval until the new reports were done. She asked if the City was effectively putting a moratorium on development until the Wade Associates studies were received. Staff said this was not the case, because wastewater impact studies were considered by the City Commission as part of a development’s public improvement plan. There was no reason the Planning Commission should delay looking at the lot distribution, lot layout, street design and other platting elements. Also, many platted lots were “ready to go.” Mr. Wagner said Staff would be happy to consider another prudent alternative, but so far one had not been found. This was the reason a case-by-case review of each development proposal was recommended.
It was verified that Wade Associates was contracted to study all basins contributing to the 5th & Kentucky Street list station. Mr. Wagner responded to questioning that recent heavy rains had created minor overflow problems at this lift station. He said that all overflow events were reported to KDHE and that these were not a common occurrence for Lawrence.
It was clarified that Staff had no direct opposition to using conditional language referencing AP76 as proposed by the applicant, but asked for additional time to study the implications of the proposed language. It was suggested that using Mr. Struble’s language regarding AP76 might limit the application of other regulations or give the false impression that other regulations did not apply.
Staff responded to questioning that development was not being “shut down” until the Wade & Associates study was complete.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Erickson to approve the Final Plat for Stoneridge East with conditions as recommended by Staff and without text modifications proposed by the applicant.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Mr. Struble brought it to the Commission’s attention that discussion to this point was focused on potential sewer failures in sub-basin KR-2, which did not contain the subject property involved in any of tonight’s agenda items. He said the Commission was mistakenly led to believe tonight’s proposals led to the 5th & Kentucky Street lift station, which was not the case.
Ms. Finger said Mr. Struble’s comments were correct, the subject property in this request was not contained in the KR-2 sub-basin. Staff’s concern with Agenda Items 1 & 3 was that no downstream analysis had been provided. The recommended conditions were intended reflect the Subdivision Regulation requirement to provide this data.
It was discussed why AP76 had been adequate conditional language in the past but was not questioned. Ms. Finger noted that the condition, as worded, was nearly verbatim for AP76. She explained that the requirement for a downstream analysis had not been consistently applied since 1999 and may have been the reason behind today’s concerns. Given recent events, the importance of applying this condition was made apparent. It was noted that Utilities Staff had attended the Planning Commission meeting in August to announce that they would begin enforcing this regulation more strictly.
Mr. Struble was asked to comment. He stated his appreciation for the opportunity to continue working with Staff but explained he was “not sure what to expect” from working with Mr. Ciesielski as a new Utilities Engineer. He did express concern at his inability to tell his client how much the downstream analysis would cost because an end-point to the study was not defined. He also asked what other factors may have been underestimated in the 2003 Master Plan.
It was suggested that AP76 was not within the Planning Commission’s purview. This policy language was under the authority of the governing body and the applicant could take up the issue of condition language, including AP76, when he addressed the City Commission.
Burress said he would support the motion on the floor, because the Code clearly stated the need for proof that a development could be supplied with adequate sewer capacity. However, he was not happy that there was no alternative to the situation currently facing the development community.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the Final Plat for Stoneridge East and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried 9-0-1, with Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Harris, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting favor. Jennings abstained due to his absence from the Monday meeting where a significant amount of information was discussed. Student Commissioner Wright voted in favor.