PC minutes 07/25/05

ITEM NO 6:               PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CYPRESS PARK ADDITION; 1801 LEARNARD AVENUE (PGP)

PP-06-15-05:  Preliminary Plat for Cypress Park Addition.  The property is generally described as being located at 1801 Learnard Avenue.  This proposed five-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 2.229 acres.  Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Steve Standing, property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Patterson explained the plat was published with a public hearing related to a variance that was required with the original application.  The applicant had revised the plat so the variance and public hearing were no longer needed.

Mr. Patterson described the lot dimensions and the applicant’s proposal to develop 5 lots.  He noted that Lot 3 was currently developed with a single-family home that included a 2-story garage that could be used as an additional residential unit when this  zoning district converts with the new code.

It was noted that the revised plat dedicated ½ of the necessary right-of-way on Learnard Avenue, which cleared up dedication questions identified in the Staff Report.  Sewer lines were readily available for the subject property and the City Stormwater Engineer had approved the detention basin with minor revisions.  However, Staff still had concerns about the proposed flag-shaped lots and recommended denial based on these concerns, including:

• Flag lots do not lend themselves to future redevelopment of the subject area or its surroundings.
• Future owners may want to re-divide the flag lots, which would be possible per the minimum lot size in this zoning district.
• The home on the back lot faces the rear of the home of the front lot.
• Homes on flag lots are often difficult for emergency vehicles and delivery drivers to find.
• The extensions of maintenance and utility lines area more expensive to property owners of flag lots.
• It is possible to divide the overall property for the same use with more conventional lot configuration.
• Driveways shared by multiple flag lots tend to function as private streets, which are not allowed and are not constructed to cul-de-sac standards.

Staff responded to questioning that there had been discussion with the applicant about more acceptable types of infill development, and the applicant was prepared to explain to the Commission his reason for wanting to pursue the flag lot proposal.

Haase asked what the maximum harm would be of approving the development as proposed.  Mr. Patterson said the most harm would be done by the precedent set, establishing a perception that the City approved of this kind of development.  Other negative impacts included the creation of lots that would be more expensive to serve with utilities and could hamper future redevelopment.

It was established that the Stormwater Engineer’s “sign off” on the plat indicated his professional opinion that the proposal would not make existing conditions worse and might make these conditions better.  Burress asked if existing development could or should expect new development to fix existing problems.  Staff replied that the current regulations made no such requirement.  Planning Staff said questions about the legal liability for water running off one’s property onto another should be addressed to Legal Staff.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Keeney explained the applicant’s intent to develop the property as shown on the plat and to maintain his own existing residence on the site.

Mr. Keeney said he had explained to the applicant that there would be opposition to the flag lot design, but the applicant still expressed a desire to develop flag lots.  Mr. Keeney suggested that flag lots were a viable option in the Barker neighborhood because this configuration already existed in the area (not a precedent) and the neighborhood included a variety of lot sizes. 

Mr. Keeney noted the shared drives reduced the impact on Learnard Avenue by creating two access points instead of five and said the shared drives would be “extra-wide” and would not be gravel drives.  He said that most of the letters Staff received were supportive of the proposal and that a development designed according to Staff’s suggestions would likely be met by neighborhood opposition.

There was discussion about stormwater and detention, including the applicant’s opinion that the development would leave the area in an equal stormwater situation.  The applicant referenced the conditions provided by Staff in case the Commission chose to approve the plat.  He asked the Commission to consider striking or revising the condition requiring an approved stormwater detention study and site grading plan.

Steve Standing, property owner, said the area residents supported the flag lot configuration because it fit the large-lot development already in place and limited the potential density and number of curb cuts on the property.

Mr. Standing addressed the points raised by Staff against flag lots:

• Future redivision may be controlled by attaching a deed restriction against future land divisions.

• Visibility of the back lot to the front lot may be solved with extensive landscaping.
• Police, Fire & Medical made no comments regarding emergency response or accessibility in their review of the plat.
• The area currently has ditches and culverts for stormwater detention and control.  Putting in detention elements as proposed would improve the current situation by as much as 85%.

Mr. Standing was asked to explain why he chose to pursue the flag lot configuration when different options were possible.  He replied that the flag lot design seemed best suited to deal with the way the property lies and the necessary placement of stormwater retention elements.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

It was discussed that a deed restriction offered no protection for the City’s interests in case the restriction was broken.  This type of agreement was similar to a covenant where the City took no part.  It would not provide 100% protection, but Staff said the City might choose to require a note stating that only one home was permitted on each lot unless the land was replatted.

It was established that a Homeowner’s Association was proposed to maintain the shared driveways that would function as private drives.  City Staff said this was not adequate because, again, the City had no part in the agreement and no way to protect its’ interests.

Lawson commented that he understood Staff’s position, but he appreciated the proposal and thought it would allow more people to live in and enjoy this neighborhood.  He referenced one letter that said it was unreasonable to disallow a tasteful development based on what “might happen in the future”.  He spoke about the Commission’s realistic ability to control future events and stated his opinion that the proposed deed restriction was ample to meet the concerns raised.

It was suggested that the City could initiate rezoning for the subject area to a zoning district that carried a larger minimum lot size and would restrict future divisions.  Staff noted that this would constitute spot zoning.  It was verified that the new Subdivision Regulations would address flag lots but no specific language was written.

The Commission discussed that a more conventional development design would not be supported by the neighborhood, but the design the residents supported was clearly against the City regulations.  Burress said he would like to see what design alternatives could be found and asked how much time would be needed for the applicant to work with Staff to find a new design that met with City regulations and neighborhood approval.  Ms. Finger estimated this could be done by September or October.  Mr. Keeney suggested that a flat denial of the flag lot proposal would be more useful than a deferral, giving the applicant and the neighborhood a clear message that this kind of development would not be accepted.    He said his firm could then work on alternate development designs instead of putting this burden on Staff.

Haase suggested that, if denied, the applicant consider returning with a PUD request or a proposal for rezoning to a district with a lower density.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Burress, seconded by Erickson to deny the Preliminary Plat for Cypress Park Addition, based on the concerns outlined in the Staff Report.

Motion carried 6-1, with Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase and Riordan voting in favor and Lawson in opposition. Student Commissioner Wright voted in favor.