ITEM NO. 7: RS-1 TO RS-E; 88 LOTS IN WESTERN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD (JLT)
Z-08-41-04: A request to rezone property in Western Hills Neighborhood from RS-1 (Single-Family Residential) District to RS-E (Single-Family Residence Estate) District. The 88 lots are located in the Western Hills Subdivision. Initiated by the City Commission on August 24, 2004.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully introduced the item, a request created by some area residents to rezone the entire neighborhood from RS-1 to RS-E. These residents wanted to restrict lot splits by applying the minimum lot size requirements of the estate zoning district because they were concerned that recent lot splits were creating a pattern that would significantly alter the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Tully presented a map showing the 58 property owners that made the original request to the City Commission. When initiating the rezoning at the request of these 58 owners, the City Commission increased the subject area to 88 lots, involving multiple subdivisions. Two additional lots within the subject area had been split, resulting in a total of 90 lots, nine of which are unplatted. With the current RS-1 zoning, approximately 10-25 of the 90 subject lots could be subdivided.
Staff had broken the 90 subject lots into three general categories:
Mr. Tully described the conflicting interests of property owners who wanted to retain the large-lot character of the neighborhood, versus those who wanted to retain their ability to split their property. He referenced sections of the Comprehensive Plan that spoke about the use of estate categories in “sensitive areas” of the UGA. It was noted that the subject area was annexed in the 1980’s with significant resistance from the property owners. The original development intent, prior to annexation, had been for large-lot development and this request was based on retention of that character.
Mr. Tully gave an overview of the letters received from the public, pointing out that some letters came from property owners outside of the subject area. Two letters were received from the property owners at 4211 W. 13th Street and 1221 Monterey Way, asking that their lots be removed from the rezoning request. Mr. Tully explained Staff’s position on each of these requests:
4211 W. 13th Street – this lot is unplatted and abuts two different zoning categories. The lot takes access off W. 13th Street. The lot is not adjacent to any other RS-1 zoned land, so allowing the lot to retain its current RS-1 zoning would constitute spot zoning according the development code definition. Staff could not support a recommendation for allowing 4211 W. 13th Street to retain RS-1 zoning, but suggested the property owner seek RS-2 zoning to match the property to the west. Splitting the lot according the RS-2 restrictions would be possible if 13th Street were extended from the west.
1221 Monterey Way – this property is platted and is one lot away from a recently split lot. The lot would be surrounded on three sides by RS-E zoning if the rezoning were approved. “Dad” Perry Park is across the street and currently has RS-1 zoning, but the parkland will be rezoned to OS (Open Space) when the new code is adopted in early 2005. Staff could support a decision to remove 1221 Monterey Way from the rezoning application, based on a claim that it did not (yet) meet the technical definition of spot zoning.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request including all 90 of the proposed lots.
Staff answered several questions from the Commission:
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
The City initiated this application, so there was no applicant presentation.
PUBLIC HEARING
Kristen Howick, 1221 W. 13th Street, said she opposed the rezoning because it would prevent her from capitalizing on the investment she had made in her property. She asked if the City or the neighborhood was willing to compensate her for that loss. She said it was not fair that larger lots would still be able to subdivide and that this proposal would interfere with her ability to “get rid of [her] property when it goes on the market next week.”
Carl Locke, 1331 Ranchero Drive, said he supported the rezoning because he wanted to preserve the character that was in place when he bought his land, and he saw that character changing with every lot split. Mr. Locke said he taught Economic Engineering and he would like to present his students with the problem of figuring which option resulted in the most economic benefit – splitting the land into multiple parcels or leaving the parcel intact.
Ed Sloan spoke as the legal representative for a several property owners in support of the rezoning. Mr. Sloan said he expressed the view of the “majority” of the area’s residents; they wanted to maintain their “oasis” in the center of Lawrence and did not want new subdivisions inside the neighborhood. Approximately 15 people responded to Mr. Sloan’s request that all those present in favor of the rezoning stand and be recognized.
Mr. Sloan noted again that the area was annexed with estate-sized lots and that annexation was not voluntary. He said the Commission should take notice any time there was a significant amount of neighborhood activism, including those properties directly affected by the rezoning and those outside the subject area.
Mr. Sloan responded to questioning that he had not had an opportunity to talk to his clients about the exceptions as requested (1221 W. 13th Street & 4211 Monterey Way), but he did not foresee any significant opposition to the exclusion of these two border properties.
Ron Helmick, 4130 W. 12t Street, asked those Commissioners who were “on the fence” to remember their own childhood memories of playing outside in open space and fresh air.
Teresa Rew, 3910 W. 12th Street, said her property was diagonally adjacent to the recently approved R.L. Subdivision and that this land division had a negative impact on the area. She purchased her own land prior to annexation and was drawn to the area because of its open space. She asked to preserve the ability of kids to play in large yards and to maintain privacy without fences.
Fred McElhaney, 3920 W. 13th Street, said he had “done battle with the Planning Commission many times” during his 41 years in this neighborhood. He said Lawrence tried to “sell itself” on its neighborhoods and this one had a very specific character similar to Old West Lawrence and others that got a lot of publicity.
Mr. McElhaney commented that he was “appalled” by the appearance of the recently subdivided land at 1201 Monterey Way. He did not think this development was appropriate as a gateway to the neighborhood. He said he would “hate to think of the whole area developed like Kasold & Peterson… with homes an arms width apart.”
Mr. McElhaney supported the preservation of greenspace in neighborhoods said that any action but approval for the rezoning request would create a “dangerous precedent” for the area. He said it was not in the City’s best interest to encourage the development of “small, cramped houses that do not contribute to the quality of life or the reputation of city.”
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Tully explained the Monterey Way property would have difficulty meeting the minimum subdivision requirements of either RS-E; although the lot is just over 40,000 square feet in size, it is not wide enough to meet the requirements and division would result in another curb cut on a collector street (Monterey Way).
Comm. Burress asked Staff to speak about the legal implications of spot zoning. Mr. Tully replied that spot zoning was contrary to HORIZON 2020, and any action of that nature would “erode the validity of the Comprehensive Plan”. Planning Staff was not qualified to say whether such an action would weaken a court case.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Angino agreed with the statement that the area was not annexed willingly and he verified the neighborhood currently had a “park-like” environment. He referenced Staff’s analysis that 4211 W. 13th Street would have difficulty dividing even under the current zoning, and that leaving 1221 Monterey Way as RS-1 would constitute spot zoning. Comm. Angino said the Comprehensive Plan had a provision for this kind of development and he would support the rezoning of all 90 lots as presented.
Comm. Burress stated the purpose of the zoning ordinance was to maximize total value. He believed that overall rezoning would do this, creating the best value for the City as a whole, although it would negatively impact the property value of a few individuals. He discussed the fact that the code does not provide a way to repay those individuals for their loss.
It was verified that a number of lots would still be able to divide with RS-E zoning, but the number of times lots could divide was reduced, based on minimum lot size in the new zoning district. This would result in an overall reduction in the potential development density of the area.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Jennings to approve the rezoning of 90 lots from RS-1 to RS-E and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.