Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning Department

 

TO:

David Corliss

Debbie Van Saun

FROM:

Planning Department

CC:

Mike Keeney, Peridian Group – Applicant

Steve Standing – Owner

Date:

November  3, 2005

RE:

November 8, 2005 Agenda Item

de novo hearing for Cypress Park Addition Preliminary Plat 

 

PP-06-15-05:  An appeal filed by the applicant for a de novo hearing on the Preliminary Plat for Cypress Park Addition.  The property is generally described as being located at 1801 Learnard Avenue.  This plat is for a proposed five lot, single-family residential subdivision that contains approximately 2.229 acres. The plat was prepared by Peridian Group, Inc. for Steve Standing, the property owner of record.

 

On July, 25, 2005, the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission denied, on a 6-1 vote [Commissioners Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Hasse and Riordan voting in favor of the denial, Commissioner Lawson voting in opposition of the denial] the Preliminary Plat for Cypress Park Addition, citing the following reasons for their denial of the plat:

  1. Proposed lot configuration does not lend itself to the future redevelopment of the property or surrounding properties. (Re: Section 21-101(b)(3)).
  2. The proposed layout does not “coordinate the development of each parcel of land with the existing community, and facilitate the property development of adjoining land.” (Re: Section 21-101(b)(3)).
  3. The proposed plat should be redesigned to allow for adequate right-of-way access for the further development of this and adjacent properties (north and west) in the future. (Re: Section 21-607(d)).
  4. “Infill development should conform to lot size of the area in which it is proposed.” (Re: Horizon 2020, residential Development Chapter 5-14, Policy 3.3(c)).
  5. The recording of Lot 3 would make the accessory 2-story barn non-complying as it would exceed the maximum rear yard coverage, (Re: Section 20-1312).

 

Section 21-801 of the Subdivision Regulations provides for an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action through a de novo hearing process. This section of the regulations is included below:

 

21-801.          APPEALS.

The subdivider of a proposed subdivision may appeal to the governing body decisions made in the enforcement or interpretation of these regulations by the Planning Department, Planning Commission or the appropriate engineer.  Any such appeal shall provide a hearing de novo.  In the event the governing body sustains such decisions, the prior enforcement or interpretation shall be final, except as otherwise provided by law.  If the governing body overrules the Planning Commission, the governing body shall state its decision and the reasons therefore, in writing, and submit the decision and plat to the Planning Commission, seeking concurrence.  In case of non-concurrence, the decision of the appropriate governing body shall be final.  (Ord. 5257)

 

Supplemental information provided with this memo are: the staff report, written communications to the Planning Commission, Planning Commission meeting minutes for this plat, action letter to the applicant,  and the applicant’s request for a de novo hearing.  Oral comments were not received on this item by the Planning Commission as plats are non-public hearing items on their agenda and public comments are only received in written form prior to the submittal deadline for written communications.

 

Possible Actions

 

Section 20-801 of the Subdivision Regulations identifies the process that must be followed in a de novo hearing request.   This request is treated as an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action to deny the Preliminary Plat for Cypress Park Addition. 

 

After holding a public hearing on the appeal request, the City Commission may take one of three actions:

  1. sustain the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the plat
  2. approve the plat as submitted;
  3. approve the plat with conditions that are required to be met prior to submittal of a final plat.

 

If the City Commission approves the plat, overruling the Planning Commission’s decision, the City Commission needs to state the reasons for their action and submit these in writing to the Planning Commission with the record of their decision, seeking concurrence from the Planning Commission. This is a procedural step outline in the Regulations. The City Commission’s decision is final and is not dependent upon concurrence by the Planning Commission.