Planning Commission Minutes 2/22/06

Planning Commission Minutes 2/16/06

ITEM NO. 5A: A TO RM-D, 19.5234 ACRES; NORTH OF W. 6^th STREET & WEST OF QUEENS ROAD (PGP)

Z-09-58-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 19.5234 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RM-D (Duplex-Residential District). The property is generally described as being located ¼ mile north of W. 6th Street and west of Queens Road. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for Michael D. Stultz, property owner of record.

ITEM NO. 5B: A TO RS-2; 21.233 ACRES; NORTH OF W. 6^TH STREET & WEST OF QUEENS ROAD (PGP)

Z-09-59-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 21.233 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District). The property is generally described as being located ¼ mile north of W. 6th Street and west of Queens Road. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for Michael D. Stultz, property owner of record.

Staff Presentation

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Next items or items, No. 5A, B and C. If we could have the presentations altogether. A and B are a public hearing item C is a non-public. We will discuss these individually as motions but we can have presentation and applicant discussion concurrently.

MR. PATTERSON: Good evening. For the record, Paul Patterson, member of the planning staff. Item No. 5 is a request for rezoning and a preliminary plat for Stultzland. The 40 acres is located approximately one quarter of a mile to the north of West 6th Street. It is along the west side of Queens Road. And you have two zoning requests before you. On the southern portion of the 40 acres you have a zoning request for 19.5 acres from agriculture to RM-D which is the duplex residential. In the northern portion you have zoning request from agriculture to RS-2 which is our typical single-family zoning district of 19.5 acres.

The lower portion the duplex zoning requested area consists of 69 duplex lots which would be a total of 138 dwelling units. The northern portion would be 73 lots or 73 dwelling units for single-family houses.

In looking at the transportation portion you have Queens Road along the east side which will be a collector street. You have Overland Drive along the south side, and you have internal roads throughout the subdivision. There will be three local streets that will go to the north, back to the north and one local street which will connect to the Oregon Trail addition to the west. At this point in time Queens Road is a gravel road and Overland Drive is paved and constructed up to Queens Road. There will need to be some offsite dedication for Overland Drive and some improvements to Overland Drive, also Queens Road would need to be improved, and the city is requesting that when Queens Road does get improved that it go north through the intersection with the western end of Wakarusa Drive so that it will be a continuous project that's done at one point in time.

You do have one detention area that's in the very northwest corner of the property where the storm water will drain into.

And then on to the sanitary sewer/wastewater issue. There is an existing pump station commonly called Pump Station No. 10 that is within Oregon Trail addition and that was done through a sewer benefit district. The utilities department has looked at how much of that existing pump station should be allocated to this project and that pump station allows for 1.17 million gallons per day to be pumped. It's pumped up through a forced main actually across West 6th Street to the Yankee Tank drainage basin. The allotted amount of this area is 19 percent of that sewer benefit district or 0.22 million gallons per day. The applicant has provided information to utilities to do this project in two phases. Phase I, would be built with the existing pump station improvements and then Phase II would need to be delayed until there's additional infrastructure improvements constructed to handle the wastewater and sanitary sewer from this area.

Staff recommendation is to approve the zoning requests for the RM-D and the RS-2 subject to the condition for approval and filing of the final plat with the register of deeds.

On the preliminary plat there are five conditions that are suggested and staff would recommend those with the removal of Stoneridge Drive from Condition No. 1.

Condition No. 1 asked for an agreement not to protest a benefit district for road improvements which include Overland Drive, Queens Road and Stoneridge Drive. The city commission heard at the Tuesday night meeting a request for a benefit district for Stoneridge Drive. That request was generated from Oregon Trails Addition and it did not actually include the Stultzland property. Stoneridge Drive is at this ridge here, Queens Road is over here. This is the property we're dealing with. Stoneridge Drive is a collector street that goes up to meet with Overland Drive and the city commission looked at this as far as the benefit district and did not require the participation of the Stultzland Property, so that particular Stoneridge Drive requirement should be stricken from Condition No. 1 on the preliminary plat. And with that any questions that you may have at this point in time or if you want to wait until after the applicants makes their presentation. You also do have a letter from the League of Women Voters, and if you have any questions about that we will provide a response.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Thank you. We would ask the applicant to come forward.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

MR. WERNER: Paul Werner with Paul Werner Architects. I don't have a whole lot prepared tonight because we have a pretty good staff report and we're in agreement with staff on the conditions and the recommendation. We'd like to just point out a few things. We do believe our request is in conformance with the Northwest Area Plan and Horizon 2020 based on density and the gradation in the change of zoning as we go further north from 6th Street. As you can tell from this drawing we're -- actually there's a PRD-2 at this location then duplex on the other side, on the east side of Queens Road. Our duplex is actually south of that. Oregon Trail has duplexes at this location and actually it has duplexes that extends further north as you go to the west. So briefly I mean I think we are providing that gradation that both Horizon 2020 and Northwest Area Plan actually asked for. Other comment I'd like to make is the market studies and, you know, we sat here last month and, you know, you guys talked about market studies dealing with the commercial property pretty extensively, and as it relates to the residential, my client and our client has Monterey Bluffs and Green Tree, all single-family right around. These guys know their market and the duplex zoning provides a market that is needed and needs to be served. And it's the background of why we think this is the accurate proposal.

It seems if we're going to look at these market studies and have -- the market does change and looking at the subdivisions, he has that the duplexes is a necessary portion of this proposal. I'll answer any questions you have and Landplan's here as well to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Any questions for applicant or staff? Commissioner Lawson?

COMMISSIONER LAWSON: Purely a matter of curiosity. I realize this is just a preliminary plat but it sure looks like roundabouts in the corners. I'm curious, are those reflected there with the expectation that that's what eventually will show up there and if so is that at your choice or is that something that's mandated? I honestly don't understand that.

MR. WERNER: I don't believe that's our choice but if you want to ask.

MR. STRUBLE: I'd love to answer the roundabout quiz.

MR. WERNER: Go easy on these.

COMMISSIONER LAWSON: I don't want to distract from the real issue.

MR. STRUBLE: It's a very good question. The only policy that deals with traffic circles and roundabouts that we have received, we being the development and engineering community from the City of Lawrence, is that we need to very carefully consider roundabouts at collector, collector intersections. And in trying to adhere to that and not deviate from that at the locations where we show collectors, which would be Queens and Overland and Stoneridge and Overland, those are collector, collector intersections, and that is the only written policy that we have available that dictates where we put those and so we were just attempting to adhere to that.

COMMISSIONER LAWSON: So it's basically there's an insinuation that that's the desired view in the future?

MR. WERNER: That is exactly correct.

COMMISSIONER LAWSON: And again I apologize for taking us off on a tangent, but if you'll indulge me I'm curious. Also it's bantered around a lot what the costs are, what does it cost to do a roundabout?

MR. STRUBLE: A roundabout at those locations is probably an additional $250,000 just to do that.

COMMISSIONER LAWSON: When it's done it's part of the initial installation so to speak. If it were to be done on a retrofit basis?

MR. STRUBLE: Right. What they're trying to avoid is the retrofit of putting traffic signals in there which is probably the same cost. So the thinking is that well, if we do it now, and it's the same cost and it eliminates that need for a traffic signal in the future, well, then, let's just do it now and, you know, I understand the logic from all that and it's not cheap and it eats up a bunch of ground and it's another roundabout.

COMMISSIONER LAWSON: Thanks.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Commissioner Eichhorn.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: I'm sorry, Phil, I have a sewer question. Sorry, actually I guess

sorry, Paul.

MR. WERNER: I'm sorry about sewer questions.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: In reading this, noticing that they're using 19 percent of the land and then the sewer is basically taken as a 19 percent I guess I'm -- my concern is how come it's done a percentage of land use as opposed to a fixed unit or I guess an ultimate build out and obviously an ultimate build out doesn't exist, so --

MR. WERNER: This property paid 19 percent of the cost of the Wastewater Pump Station No. 44 not ten, ten was mis-marked on the map and that's a mistake I made a number of times. Which is the big pump station that's in the north end of Oregon Trail.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: That was based purely on a square footage or acreage?

MR. WERNER: That was based on anticipated uses based on Horizon 2020. In the Horizon 2020 version that is 1995 and 1996.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: Right.

MR. WERNER: So a lot of things have changed to get us to the point we're at dealing with wastewater. We come back -- we come to the, the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan and Black & Veatch and that Wastewater Master Plan says that a single-family house has three people in it and a duplex has three people in it per half of the duplex. And in negotiating and a lot of other things happen that increase -- well, I'm just going to say it. The pump station that they paid for is -- was supposed to be temporary, was supposed to go away. And somebody between 1995 and 2003 decided it's going to be permanent and so our temporary pump station that was going to go away and be bigger and supply all the capacity now is permanent and we're trying to deal with that and we're working weekly with the utility staff and I can go into exhausting details about this and I'm not going to do that unless you ask me.

But we've got 19 percent of the capacity to this property. So what we've agreed with the utility staff is that all the properties being Mercato, Oregon Trail, Stultzland and a portion of the Turner ground and a piece of Route LLC will get today the capacity that they paid for with the caveat that the city is working very diligently and within the next several years will provide the remaining amount of the capacity. So we've got -- do you have your phase line map that I can borrow? This is the equivalent -- the combination of single family and duplex lots in here is the equivalent of 19 percent of the flow capacity going into the existing pump station. Our understanding in our conversation with city staff is that, you know, a duplex lot is two single-family lots. And so we could add more single -- duplex lots but we lose twice as many single-family lots. We can add more single-family lots but we lose every other duplex lot. So it's a -- it's a real math equation with how we come up with this. But this, this drawing is purely just representative of what would equate to 19 percent of the flow of the capacity that wastewater pump, pump station, assuming the developer decides to do this.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: I and II.

MR. WERNER: I.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: I.

MR. WERNER: I only. II is second phase that can be done once the city does their next step and I -- you know, you all probably see the E-mails and notices, they're working pretty hard on that right now and I believe they're going to solve that problem. I don't want to say that this

is exactly what they're going to do but our agreement with the utility department is whatever they agree to do is going to equal only 19 percent of the capacity of that wastewater pump station. Did I answer your question or did I just ramble?

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: Very clearly, that's --

MR. WERNER: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Commissioner Haase?

COMMISSIONER HAASE: I'm want to return to roundabouts just because it's a project of mine. I was concerned about the roundabout at Monterey and Peterson Road so I asked the city to provide some cost data on what that roundabout would cost and the number was like $53,000 and I just heard you say five times that so do I need to re-open the case with the city or is there a difference in the design of these roundabouts?

MR. WERNER: No, that's a collector, collector -- actually, no, that's a different roundabout. That's a collector/minor arterial roundabout so it's designed different. These are collector/collector roundabouts. I would just fall back on, you know, let's even go as far back as the roundabout at Harvard and Monterey Way. I mean that was $300,000.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: So I need to reinvestigate this number that was given to me?

MR. WERNER: You know, if it's given a different scale, you know, of course the difference is that was just -- they built a roundabout all by itself the Monterey-Peterson roundabout was part of a $7 million project, you know. How do you, how do you differentiate asphalt? How do you differentiate curb and gutter. How do you differentiate the earth work included in it, you know, there's lots of ways to break the thing out. You know, if you just went out to it and built a roundabout it's going to be a big number.

MR. STRUBLE: John's talking about a traffic circle.

MR. WERNER: Traffic circle would be $53,000.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: Monterey and Peterson Road is a big one.

MR. WERNER: Big nice roundabout, it's nice because we did it.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: I'll reconvene my investigation. Thanks for the information.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Further questions?

COMMISSIONER KREBS: I have a question.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Commissioner Krebs.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: We were discussing earlier about RS-2 and RM-D like for a buffer zone. For the future what will the new development code offer us in options on lot sizes for single-family areas?

MS. STOGSDILL: Well, in single-family areas you'll have the RS-3, 3,000 square foot, 5,000 square foot and 7,000 square foot. 7,000 square foot would be the equivalent of the RS-2 that you have currently. You should also be aware that the RM-D, the duplex residential lots configuration under current code is basically the same configuration in setbacks as the RS-2 so you have the same lot width and depth in minimal lot areas that you have from RM-D to RS-2. The only real difference that you would have twice the number of dwelling units and the duplexes have the single-family residential and then also you could have I believe additional story in the RM-D within the RS-2.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: Thanks.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Any further questions? Commissioner Burress.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: I know that we have a need for duplexes and we're going to be building more of them but there's always the feeling people have when you see this sea of -- well, the people who live in Lawrence that we're going to have a big concentration of duplexes, it looks like a sea of duplexes that you want to be in there. So is it going to be like a -- they become all renter occupied and they tend to get rundown if they have multiple owners. Some owners don't keep them up and that puts pressure on other owners to let it die-off policy so you get a whole blight neighborhood how do you keep that from happening.

MR. WERNER: I think Park West directly -- the subdivision, those duplexes work really well with

the single-family homes, single-family homes have sold great. I couldn't attest to how much renters are in there but I know some of them are. But they are still selling at a reasonable price for a duplex and it's not that easy for somebody to go in and buy the entire duplex and turn it into a rental. Obviously we always talk and say it's tough to say it's never going to happen but I think this developer's recent duplex projects have proven that it does work. I mean they're building a better product. People are buying them. They're, you know, they're sodding the yards and all this sort of thing that you get associated with single-family homes and the price range it's a viable need in this market.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: And with these newer developments that we don't have the kind of deterioration, what's the time -- what history do they have, how long have they been around?

MR. WERNER: Oh, out on 15th Street I'd say, you know, four, five, six years.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: So we don't know too much about what will happen in 20 years?

MR. WERNER: We don't know too much that will happen in 20 years.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: In doing this development sidewalks on one side, did I read that map right?

MR. WERNER: I believe, yes.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Don't -- I think it would be a little more viable as a neighborhood with sidewalks on two sides.

MR. WERNER: That's probably true.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Would you object to putting sidewalks on two sides?

MR. WERNER: I would rather speak with my client about that.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Thank you.

MR. WERNER: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Any other questions? Items 5A and 5B are -- yes.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Question for staff. The letter says that we've got a whole neighborhood here that is being developed tremendously without a neighborhood plan and

the result is we don't have any center to the neighborhood, no parks, schools, places to go, neighborhood small commercial as opposed to major commercial that they will have on the south end of the neighborhood. There ain't no there there... So League of Women Voters thinks this neighborhood is not going to be a nice neighborhood.

MR. PATTERSON: Mr. Chairman, you'd like me to critique the League of Women Voters' letter, is that what you'd like me to do?

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Certainly.

MR. PATTERSON: In looking at this, for a lot of people in the Lawrence market for good or for bad it's very difficult for developers to build a single-family house that is more affordable to a lot of people in this community. And we have been using -- or the market is using the duplex

residential as a typical entry level type of housing because of the cost to build it in today’s market. The Northwest Area Plan identified this area more as single-family residential on the north side of Overland Drive but there is a present need to have some multiple family, the duplex type of structure to allow for people to purchase housing here in Lawrence. The plat does not have a participation in the neighborhood parks, there's no contribution for parks. It is basically a complete build out of a residential area that would allow people to live there in the lot sizes that we have accounted. It is not within walking distances of a lot of places. There would be sidewalks that would connect, there are bicycle paths that would connect. But as far as a lot of amenities, no, there are not a lot of amenities to this particular subdivision.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Not in this particular subdivision but in the entire area; is that not the case?

MS. STOGSDILL: I'd like to just point out that less than half a mile to the east across Queens Road there's 30 acres that the city owns on the north side of Overland Drive, I think it's Overland and Congressional which is future park land and then again, you know, just across

Wakarusa you have Freestate High School with the indoor aquatic center. You -- clearly you have a significant amount of commercial development at 6th and Wakarusa. And next on your agenda you have potential for commercial development to the west and you've approved the Northgate Development. So and then actually there's small neighborhood commercial that's approved in the Westwood Hills Subdivision which is on the north side of Wakarusa just east of Queens. So there --

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Could you show us on the map, show us the map.

MS. STOGSDILL: I think the applicant can do this.

MR. WERNER: This is not a great map. We're located right here. Overland Drive, that specific park's right here. This is the commercial that Sheila just mentioned you're going to be talking about here shortly.

MR. HERNDON: Bike lanes.

MR. WERNER: Recreational path ten foot wide recreation just east, I think there's a lot of amenities.

MR. HERNDON: Bike lane on the SLT.

MR. WERNER: This being the city park that we're talking about. Indoor aquatic area right here.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Three-quarters of a mile from the aquatic center, three-quarters of a mile from the SLT.

MR. WERNER: All collector streets have bike lanes on it.

MS. STOGSDILL: It's not that far from the aquatic sign.

MR. HERNDON: Here's the bike lane on SLT which will be a connected bike lane and walk path which will connect on 6th Street, also bike lanes on all collector streets on Overland Drive right there so that would effectively connect the north/south bike lane over here, bike lane running east/west on 6th. Bike lane running east and west on Overland to the 30-acre city park, Freestate High, et cetera.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Where's the nearest elementary school?

MR. HERNDON: That would be Lincoln and Hughes Elementary right here, at least for now.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: About six, definitely not a neighborhood school, not your fault.

MR. WERNER: Not our fault.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: School Board's fault, one of my complaints.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Thank you for the information from staff. Any further questions? Items 5A and B are public comment items. Anyone wishing to come forward and talk about these? If you'd please sign-in. And are you representing someone? We will have five minutes.

If you're speaking on your own, there will be a three-minute time limit.

PUBLIC COMMENT

MR. MAXWELL: I'll be very brief and not take -- Korb Maxwell, Polsinelli, Shalton, Welte & Suelthaus law firm out of Kansas City, I'm representing the Turner family, Turner-Douglass, LLC. They are the property owners to the south and to the north of the Stultzland development, the 40.77 acres that are under consideration here tonight. We rise in full support of this development plan. Mr. Stultz we were pleased to be able to sell this property, this property was he. . Pleased to be able to sell that property to Mr. Stultz and know that he is going to do a wonderful job with that development if he moves forward with your recommendation and the city council approval and add value to the landowners and the land all around this area. The point that we come here to talk about tonight is very small and has been handled by the applicant for the most part but do just want to make a presentation and put that on the record. In the plan that I have put up here is a plan that shows the Baldwin Creek One Benefit District and the property owners that are part of the Baldwin Creek Benefit District are the Makato piece, the Oregon Trail Piece, the Stultzland Piece and the Turner's piece. It's approximately 242 acres there. And the staff report has done a fairly good job of writing about this and explaining this. But we have approximately, in this benefit district, 1.1 million gallons a day of sewage capacity and sewer capacity out of that. And through discussions I believe with the landowners we have come to an agreement and the staff is supporting this also that this sewer capacity will be metered out or dolled out by the amount of land that you have in that benefit district area from Mr. Stultz would be 19 percent. For the Turner family we have approximately 12.15 acres in that and that would be approximately 5.7 percent, I believe, and it's been represented to the Turner family that we are working on an agreement, a private letter agreement or contract between all of the different property owners here, to end up controlling how that sewage would get dolled out. But also you guys have taken care of that with your plat and through the, through the phasing process that has been, been added to that plat.

We would ask that that stipulations don't remain. Those items on the plat remain and we will work along with the other applicants here on this to make sure that a private letter agreement also controls that. But again, Mr. Chairman, just closing with the fact we do support this development just sewers are going to be very important in this area and I hope -- and I am with Mr. Struble in agreeing that we all want to work out with the sewers that are happening in this area. But until that time that 1.1 million gallons a day is important to all the different developers and all the different interests in this area and we want to make sure that the small portion of the Turner property that is in that area is protected.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Thank you. Anyone else from the public wish to come forward? Seeing no further comment from the public we'll bring this back to the commission for discussion and resolution. Commissioner Krebs.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

COMMISSIONER KREBS: I would like to state my support for the League of Women Voters suggestions which was also hinted at in the staff report of looking at Items No. 5A, the rezoning from A to RS-2 rather than RM-D. As I've commented several times this evening, the rational for allowing RM-D is partially as a buffer zone in transitioning from higher density to lower density housing. We don't really have another option besides RM-D in that buffer zone, that RM-D only allows for duplex housing so I feel like we are almost being required to create duplex housing which as we saw from one of the maps previously, that there's a fair amount of duplex housing already in the area. I would suggest to the applicant that if you are interested in doing higher than city development that once the new development code is in place, that you come back and request, you know, a possible change from RS-2 to one of these RS-3 or 5s that would allow you to do denser building but still single-family neighborhoods. So those are my thoughts. I can comment more on the density element if that would help with the sewer issue.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Commissioner Jennings.

COMMISSIONER JENNINGS: Respecting what I just heard, I try to think what it would be like on the other side of this desk, you know, we ask people to go out and do things by the rules that are in place, not by the rules that might be in place some day. That's true of every decision we make all day long in our regular lives. How frustrating must it be to try to abide by all the rules and then have someone say: Well, let's wait because the rules might change to something better some day and the whole time the interest meter's ticking, you're spending money every day we wait. I have a little trouble asking somebody to sit and wait on what the future might hold. I think, I think we ask them to bring things forward as the rules are stated

presently and we have to judge them as the rules are presently.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Commissioner Krebs.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: Commissioner Jennings, I was just offering that as a potential solution for the development. I would make this recommendation regardless of whether we had a new development code coming forth with that option that I would suggest changing this to RS-2

regardless.

COMMISSIONER JENNINGS: I respect that, I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just thinking we have to look at it in the context of the rules we have to work with.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Further comment?

Commissioner Krebs.

ACTION TAKEN

COMMISSIONER KREBS: If there is no further comment, I would make a motion to Item No. 5A to rezone the 19.52 acres from A to RS-2 using the lesser change table.

COMMISSIONER ERMELING: Second.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: There's a motion and a second to rezone from A to RS-2. Commissioner Haase.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: At one point in time we had an opinion from David Corless (sp) that we may be depriving an applicant of due process by relying upon a lesser change table. That whole statutory concept addresses the public interest, but it doesn't take into account the applicant's interest, and in this particular case I don't think the applicant is here tonight to, to be put on notice that this is something that this commission's considering, so I have grave concern about the legal implication of doing this.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Can we get feedback from staff.

MS. STOGSDILL: I believe Mr. Werner is the authorized representative for the applicant and --

COMMISSIONER HAASE: I think you have -- you'd have to have a power of attorney to really represent the applicant with respect to his legal rights.

MS. STOGSDILL: I'm not going to argue.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Commissioner Eichhorn.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: Might I ask the question of the applicant's representative?

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Yes, you may.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: Hearing the discussions going on here what do you think?

MR. WERNER: I think we would like you to vote on the RM-D. I agree that when we are here and on different items, the lesser change table seems to serve us both when that's the direction the applicant wants to go. We've been directed, our applicant, our client is very interested in the duplex zoning and that's the direction we'd like you to have.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Commissioner Burress.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Commissioner Haase, are you saying that if the applicant opposes using lesser change table we shouldn't do that or are you saying that the applicant has to have a chance to complain?

COMMISSIONER HAASE: I think we were able to gain the approval of the applicant tonight on the record and applying the lesser change table takes into account that public interest and we could be free to go forward. But I don't, I don't sense that we have that support. I think the applicant's representative has suggested that that support would not be forthcoming and I think it's a due process issue. If this is a direction the commission wishes to go, I think we'd have to initiate the zoning change and go through the proper notice process so the applicant could prepare to address this issue before the commission. That's my sentence and as I say that, is what quite a number of months ago I believe I heard Dave Corless tell us.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Commissioner Krebs.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: I have a question for staff. What is the process for requesting a rezoning if we were to approve rezoning to RS-2 and the applicant wanted to request a change in rezoning from RS-2 to RM-D, their original request? Would that process take more time than us just deferring this to next month or two weeks?

MS. STOGSDILL: I'm not sure I followed all of that. I thought I was following.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: And then I made it more confusing.

MS. STOGSDILL: If you were asking -- if you initiated RS-2 --

COMMISSIONER KREBS: If we rezone tonight with RS-2 --

MS. STOGSDILL: You recommend.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: Okay. If we recommended rezoning to RS-2 and the applicant wanted to request changing from RS-2 to RM-D once more, would that process be considerably longer than our deferring this item to allow the applicant to know that we were considering RS-2 because I assume that's the action we would take if we wanted to let the applicant know that we would defer it. Maybe just outline the process and ignore my question and see what you

can come up with.

MS. STOGSDILL: I'm sorry, I'm not 100 percent following although I'm wondering if potentially you were getting into a successive petition issue.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: That might be true.

MS. STOGSDILL: If you, if you initiated tonight, let's say for example tonight you made a motion to initiate rezoning of this property to RS-2, that would then be published for the next available agenda which would be April because we've already published for March. So there would be a public hearing in April on what you initiated and the applicant would have the ability to come speak to that. Now that I've had a little more time to consider Commissioner Haase's comment, I recall too that same -- I wasn't tracking on the fact that the -- if the applicant is opposed, the lesser change table is not necessarily the best tool and I too was not tracking on the fact that the owner was not here, because from our perspective the applicant who has the letter from the owner saying: Deal with this person he's, he's representing me, he is our applicant so, you know, that's my confusion. So I don't think the lesser change table is really a choice you have so basically you could propose to defer it until the applicant could be here.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: But even then --

MS. STOGSDILL: Or table it.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: Even then if the applicant was not unable to agree to that change we could not make that movement with a lesser change table, would we have to still initiate it?

MS. STOGSDILL: No, you would have to recommend denial.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: Okay. So if I were to want to make this movement to RS-2 then I would need to make the motion to deny their current request and initiate to an RS-2?

MS. STOGSDILL: Yes, you could do that, two separate motions.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: All right. With that intent being clear I would like to renig on my previous motion and put forth another motion to deny this rezoning request.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Was the previous motion seconded?

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Yes, it was.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: We need unanimous consent to do that or we have to vote.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: For me to remove my previous motion?

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Does anyone object to changing the motion?

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Does anyone object? No objections.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: I guess I have some hesitation to that. I guess I'd rather, I'd rather her motion go ahead and fail and then we start over and be clean.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: So there's an objection so it can't be done. We have a motion on the floor, it's been seconded. Do we have further discussion?

COMMISSIONER LAWSON: I would ask for a restatement just to make sure that I have a clear

understanding. Essentially it's a recommendation of rezoning to RS-2 as opposed to RM-D for 5A; correct?

COMMISSIONER KREBS: But now I've been told that I can't really do that, but that was the motion.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER LAWSON: All right.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Any further discussion?

MS. STOGSDILL: Why didn't the second just -- I thought the second agrees.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: I'm not sure I liked the second motion that was coming up.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: That's not relevant, we're still on this one.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: So if we both rescind our motion and second --

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: It's irrelevant, it's on the floor.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: Okay.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Any further discussion?

Seeing no further discussion we'll come to immediate vote.

All those in favor of the motion please raise your hand.

All those opposed please raise your hand.

(No showing of hands).

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Motion is defeated. Commissioner Krebs.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: I would like to move to deny the request to rezone this 19.52 acres from A to RM-D.

MS. STOGSDILL: Findings please.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: With -- well, I stated them before but I'll state them again that I feel that the rational for providing this zoning is as a buffer between higher density housing and single family. I believe that that need for buffer does not give us options outside of RM-D. I feel that there is substantial amount of RM-D in the area, that the sewer capacity issues make it clear that lower density housing would be at least appreciated in this area and that the northwest plan proposes single-family residential as the identified use for this area. And what is being proposed is medium density residential as opposed to that single-family residential which means low density.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER ERMELING: Second.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion? Commissioner Jennings.

COMMISSIONER JENNINGS: I think it's probably pretty clear to review what the owner's going to want since he stood there three weeks ago and tried to get land in the same general nature. I heard concern saying that the market was strong for duplexes and single-family houses in the area are starting to sit. I saw the other day that we have over a five-month supply of single-family houses. I may have a little trouble saying we have too much duplex land when we have five months worth of single-family living, I think the opposite may be coming true. I think we probably know what the owner wants. So I can't support this.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Commissioner Ermeling.

COMMISSIONER ERMELING: I believe RS-2 allows the potential for duplexes also and so it doesn't deny the ability to move on it.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Could you comment on that? Can you put duplexes in RS-2?

MS. STOGSDILL: No.

COMMISSIONER ERMELING: Isn't it in the new code that we could do that?

MS. STOGSDILL: In the new code there will be ability to do attached dwellings in RS district.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: With specific reasons. Commissioner Burress.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Question for staff. I'd like your interpretation that the idea that our code says that RM-2 is basically RD -- what do we call it?

MS. STOGSDILL: RM-D.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: RM-D is basically for transition areas. Do you think that's true?

MR. PATTERSON: Section 20-604(a) District purpose, the RM-D district is designed to provide for duplexes only, such districts is encouraged to be used as a buffer between RM districts and RS districts.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: If that's not our purpose we shouldn't be doing it? Is that true?

MR. PATTERSON: Says it's encouraged to be used as a buffer as one of the purposes, yes.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Commissioner Krebs.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: I'd just like to make a response to Commissioner Jennings' comments about this landowner being in here previously and making comments about the housing market falling in single-family areas. And they were speaking I believe specifically about higher-end single family homes, especially in the $300,000 range which is what they had originally planned for in the proposal that we had seen last month, and they were asking for a change because that market for single-family homes had decreased significantly. I don't know that that applies to all single-family homes.

COMMISSIONER JENNINGS: That's a discussion for another time.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Commissioner Burress.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: I've been having a hard time trying to decide whether to support this motion or not. On the other hand I believe we do have to be building more duplexes. I believe that on the other hand I don't think we know how to do it yet. Big seas of them is going to work, I certainly know I'd much prefer some ideas that have been talked about where you build duplexes on the corners and single family in the center and you integrate it and we don't worry about this blighting of the entire neighborhood, but that's not the option that's available under the code right now, so I've got to decide how to deal with this code. And since I'm stuck with this code, I guess I'm going to come down and decide that this ought to be a transition and this is too fat to be a transition, this is a transition, this is a duplex development. I'm going to support the motion but I'm not happy about it.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Commissioner Krebs.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: I would just like to say that I very much agree with you that I think there's room for duplex development, but the way that our current zoning code provides is that we can only do them in mass and we don't have the ability to mix.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Commissioner Haase.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: I think I worry as much as anybody does about duplex developments that have yielded less than what the community really wants. But I carefully listened to the staff finding of facts that you offered to support your motion; and frankly, I found it to be a little leaky. And I think in light of the code that is available and the findings of fact in the staff report, it pains me because I'd like to add a condition that they guarantee us that in 20 years this is going to look good and it's going to be family occupied and so forth. But this is a very close call for me, but I'm going to tend to be persuaded by Commissioner Burress' argument that we really do need to pay a little attention what the market is telling us and I think -- I don't think this applicant would be asking for this particular zoning if the market wasn't signaling that this is a need for our community at this time.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: Commissioner Haase, I would ask --

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Commissioner Krebs.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: The northwest plan identifies this area as single-family residential which is low density and what is being proposed here is medium density.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: I think what the plan calls for is low density which is up to six dwelling units per acre, and I think that's what you're going to get in the duplex area as well as the single-family area.

COMMISSIONER KREBS: I think that the duplex is a density of ten dwelling units per acre.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: If it's that high then it is beyond the plan.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: When we look at this -- I'd like to ask staff when we look at this area as

far as density if you look at the RM-D and RS-2 together what would density be for the entire complex. Do we know?

MR. PATTERSON: On the very last page, Page 9, it gives some calculations. If you're looking up the net acres the 27.6 acres which is actually the lot -- areas of the lot, you have a total of 211 dwelling units, which would include the dwelling units and single family dwelling units divided by 27.6. Overall density would be 7.58 dwelling unites per net acre. If you're looking at the overall gross acres 40.77 gross acres is 5.18 dwelling units per gross acre.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: So it falls into low density?

COMMISSIONER KREBS: I'm sorry, what part of this acreage is not -- let me think a moment, I'll finish the question.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Where did the 27. net acres --

COMMISSIONER KREBS: The 27. net acres was developed using the spread issue. Just adding up all the individual lot areas you would not include the road right-of-ways or the detention basin area within the 40.77 or within the overall area of the subdivision.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a clarification?

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Yes, Commissioner Haase.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: When we start deciding densities and say that low density is up to six dwelling units per acre, isn't that in terms of gross acres?

MS. STOGSDILL: Yes.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: So the discussion of net acres is sort of irrelevant to fitting this to the Northwest Area Plan; is that right?

MS. STOGSDILL: Yes.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: And this plan does conform, then, to what's stipulated in the Northwest Area Plan?

MS. STOGSDILL: That would be why we have a recommendation for approval.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: I'm catching on.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Commissioner Lawson.

COMMISSIONER LAWSON: I was going to ask confirmation of the applicant's view of the density involved, but I think in light of what just took place the question seems satisfied.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: So this does fall within the guidelines. I have some difficulty changing this from RM-D to RS-2 based on what our desires and what we would like this area to look like. I don't -- I think that puts me in a very difficult situation telling developers what to develop where. I have problems doing this although I might -- I would prefer RS-2 in this area, I have difficulty telling them that that's what they have to put there. And so I will be voting against this motion.

COMMISSIONER LAWSON: Would there be any reason not to come to an immediate vote?

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Is there any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion I'd like to come to immediate vote. All those in favor of the motion please raise your hand.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: Wait a minute, what motion is on the floor for sure?

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: At this point the motion is to --

MS. STOGSDILL: Recommend denial of the RM-D.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Recommend denial.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: Of the rezoning to RM-D?

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: Okay.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Actually the way I stated that I would vote against the motion.

MS. STOGSDILL: Yes, a vote yes would be to recommend denial.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: A vote yes would be to recommend denial.

MS. STOGSDILL: The motion is to deny so if you vote for the motion you're recommending denial.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: Of the rezoning request?

MS. STOGSDILL: Yes. Not denial of the motion.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: Get that.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: The motion is to deny change from A to RM-D, so if that's defeated we have to come back and vote again or have another motion?

MS. STOGSDILL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Okay. For denial of the motion, denial of rezoning of A to RM-D. We'll come to immediate vote. All those in favor of the motion raise your hand.

(Burress, Krebs and Ermeling voted yes).

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Three for. All those against raise your hand.

(Everyone else voted against).

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Seven -- or six against, six to three. Six against, three for it. Motion fails. Commissioner Eichhorn.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: I'd like to make a motion, Item 5A to recommend rezoning from A to RM-D, 6th Street west of Queens Road.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER LAWSON: Second.

COMMISSIONER HAASE: Second based upon the findings of fact of the staff report.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Discussion? Seeing no discussion we will come to immediate vote. Those in favor of rezoning from A to RM-D. All those in favor please raise your hand.

(Six voting in favor).

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Six for it. All those against?

(Krebs, Burress and Ermeling against)

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Three against. Motion passes.

SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEM 5A:

Motioned by Commissioner Ermeling, seconded by Krebs to approve the rezoning request based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following condition:

1. Approval and filing of a final plat at the Register of Deeds Office.

Motion carried, 6-3 with Commissioners Krebs, Burress, and Ermeling against.

Next item is 5B. 22.32 -- 21.233 acres. Commissioner Eichhorn.

COMMISSIONER EICHHORN: I'd like to make a motion on item 5B to request to recommend rezoning of 21.233 acres from A to RS-2 based upon the finding of fact.

COMMISSIONER ERMELING: Second.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Seeing none we'll come to immediate vote. All those in favor of the motion please raise your hand.

(Everyone voted in favor).

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Passes unanimously. Next item of business is Item 5C. Preliminary plat for Stultzland. Discussion? Does anyone wish to discuss or make a motion? Commissioner Jennings.

COMMISSIONER JENNINGS: I make a motion that we approve preliminary plat for Stultzland north of Overland Drive, west of Queens Road, 40.77 acres subject to the finding of fact and staff recommendation with the exception in Item 1 we should cross off Stoneridge Drive, the rest stays the same.

COMMISSIONER ERMELING: Second.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: It's been moved and seconded, seconded by Commissioner Ermeling. Further discussion? Seeing no further discussion we'll come to immediate vote. All those in favor.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: Mr. Chairman --

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Excuse me, Mr. Burress.

COMMISSIONER BURRESS: I'm going to vote against it because of the absence of sidewalks on both sides for a couple of reasons. First I consider the viability of -- especially the duplex areas of this development to be somewhat in question, and we have testimony from applicant that sidewalks on both sides is an issue that would make a difference there and they're not providing them. So to me that's a reason to vote against it. The second reason is that my interpretation of the American for Disabilities Act is that you provide equal access to persons with disabilities and you cannot do that without providing sidewalks on both sides of every street, and I'm saying that you're out of compliance with the ADA when you bring us this kind of plan and I'm going to vote against every plat that doesn't have both sidewalks on every street for that reason.

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Further discussion? Seeing no further discussion we'll come to immediate vote. All those in favor of the preliminary plat 5C raise your hand.

(Six voted in favor).

CHAIRMAN RIORDAN: Those against?

(Burress,Haase and Erickson against).

Motion passes, six to three.

SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEM 5B:

Motioned by Commissioner Eichhorn, seconded by Ermeling to approve the rezoning request based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following condition:

1. Approval and filing of a final plat at the Register of Deeds Office.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.