REGULAR AGENDA (NOVEMBER 13, 2006) MEETING:

 

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:

 

SWEARING IN OF SPEAKERS:

 

Items 4A & 4B were discussed simultaneously

PC Minutes 11/13/06 DRAFT

ITEM NO. 4A:           PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAPLE LANE ADDITION NO. 2; 1426-25 AND 1445-47 MAPLE LN (JCR)

 

PP-09-14-06: Preliminary Plat for Maple Lane Addition No. 2. This proposed two lot  subdivision contains approximately .477 acres. The property is located at 1423-25 and 1445-47 Maple Lane. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Michael and Penny Harrell, property owners of record.

 

Staff Presentation

Joe Rexwinkle, Planning staff, gave an introduction and overview of the project.  He stated that Maple Lane between 13th and 15th Street currently have a right-of-way (r-o-w) of 45 feet.  The minimum r-o-w standard is 60 feet.  The applicant has requested a variance from the requirement to provide the additional 15 feet of r-o-w.  Staff supports the applicant’s request and recommends the variance be approved on the grounds that the City is asking for the applicant to provide a 15 foot wide pedestrian, roadway and utility easement in lieu of r-o-w.  Mr. Rexwinkle said there are two additional plats on Maple Lane in which the subdivider of the property was not required to provide additional r-o-w.  The remainder of the neighborhood is unplatted.  Mr. Rexwinkle indicated there is an existing duplex on the north half of the property which was constructed prior to the lot being platted.  The existing duplex was built at the setback line and requiring additional r-o-w would make the existing structure non-conforming. The provision of the 15 foot wide pedestrian, utility and roadway easement in lieu of the r-o-w would allow for future road improvements when necessary. 

 

Comm. Burress asked if applying the minimum r-o-w standard would constitute hardship for the applicant and questioned whether the two previous plats on Maple Lane were approved under the provisions of the new law or if they fell under previous definition of hardship. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkle replied that he believed that Hines Subdivision No. 2 was approved in 2004 and Maple Lane Addition No. 1 was approved in 2000. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill confirmed that Hines was approved after the definition changed. 

 

Comm. Burress asked what led to the previous Planning Commission approval to allow a variance on the Hines development.

 

Mr. Rexwinkle stated that according the minutes from the Hines Subdivision No. 2, the Commission made a determination based upon the previous approval of Maple Lane Addition No. 1. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that the there was a discussion regarding the fact that the west side of the street is unplatted but developed.  She said that obtaining r-o-w for all of the properties would create non-conforming properties all along the street. 

 

Comm. Burress asked how this situation ties into the definition of unnecessary hardship.

 

Ms. Stogsdill said that sufficient factors exist to constitute hardship. 

 

Comm. Haase asked if the applicant is barred from proceeding with development if the standard r-o-w is maintained. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkle stated that the existing duplex would become non-conforming and it would make it more difficult for the second duplex to be constructed due to space issues.

 

Comm. Haase restated his question for the applicant.

 

Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, for applicant, answered the applicant would not be precluded from development but it would preclude what they currently have in mind for the property.  He said that in the spirit of the waiver that was granted in previous applications and if the City did not exact r-o-w standards on the rest of the addition, the standard of development would be isolated in this one development.  He stated that holding this application to a different standard would be unnecessary and would deviate from a pattern established on that side of Maple Lane.

 

Comm. Krebs asked if not granting the variance would be a hardship issue for the applicant.

 

Ms. Stogsdill replied that what Mr. Herndon stated guides the Planning Commission in this case.  There is an existing developed area.  There were homes on this property and it is not raw ground waiting to be developed.  She stated that an undeveloped lot would have to have structures sitting 15 feet further back.  This would not create a lot size issue as they are sufficiently deep and wide to provide for a duplex.

 

Comm. Burress stated that he believes precedence is of interest and asked Ms. Stogsdill for a definition of hardship.  Ms. Stogsdill read the definition of unnecessary hardship from the code. 

 

“In cases where there is hardship in carrying out the literal provisions of these regulations (such as design criteria pertaining to lot width, lot depth, block depth, etc.), the Planning Commission may grant a variance from such provisions, except that in cases where there is hardship in carrying out the literal provisions found in Sec. 20-811(d) (wastewater disposal systems) the appropriate Governing Body may grant a variance from such provisions.”

 

Comm. Burress stated that the only definition that fits in this circumstance is “arbitrary and capricious” and asked Staff for the legal definition of the term. 

 

John Miller, City Attorney, replied that he did not have the definition at hand but would be happy to research the answer. 

 

Public Hearing

No members of the public spoke regarding this item.

 

Commission Discussion

Comm. Finkeldei commented that he could not cite specific cases but he has read cases in which creating non-conforming structure is a hardship and that homeowners could experience issues with insurance and mortgages due to non-conforming use.  He continued that not granting the variance would create a situation in which a standard is imposed on this applicant that is not imposed on others. 

 

Comm. Harris stated that she had visited the site and noted the other buildings on the street are in a similar location as this request.  She said she believes the request makes sense. 

 

Comm. Harkins asked for a history of precedence in this situation. 

 

Comm. Burress said he believes arbitrary and capricious is a reasonable argument.  He does not feel takings is a good argument as this would create a situation in which money would be owed to anyone who had a non-conforming lot created due to change in zoning code.  Comm. Burress stated that takings would not be a good precedent to set. 

 

Comm. Jennings commented that this is infill and that is exactly what Planning attempts to do. 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Commissioner Jennings, seconded by Commissioner Harris to approve the Preliminary Plat for Maple Lane Addition No. 2, subject to the following condition:

1.       Add a note to the face of the plat that states that Public Improvement Plans showing sanitary sewer service for Lots 1 and 2 will be submitted for review prior to final plat approval.

 

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Haase suggested finding a tool that will allow Staff and the Commission a way to work out this type of development without granting a variance.  He stated without granting the variance, it would create an undesirable development situation and said this is an extension of the discussion regarding a situation where the Commission was asked to grant a variance for curb cuts. 

 

Comm. Burress said this is distinguished from the curb cut situation as a curb cut creates friction in traffic which can cause harm.  He continued that there will never be a development that meets the standard thus there is no need to uphold the rule and a pattern that is not being held. 

 

Comm. Krebs indicated the motion needed to be amended to approve the variance in 4A prior to approving the preliminary plat. 

 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Harris to approve the requested variance to Section 21-607.3 of the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to the required minimum right-of-way width for local streets.

                    

                     Motion passed unanimously, 10-0.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Previous motion on the floor was to approve the Preliminary Plat for Maple Lane Addition No. 2, subject to the following condition:

1.      Add a note to the face of the plat that states that Public Improvement Plans showing sanitary sewer service for Lots 1 and 2 will be submitted for review prior to final plat approval.

 

                     Motion passed unanimously, 10-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Items 4A & 4B were discussed simultaneously

PC Minutes 11/13/06 DRAFT

ITEM NO. 4B:           FINAL PLAT FOR MAPLE LANE ADDITION NO. 2; 1426-25 AND 1445-47 MAPLE LN (JCR)

 

PF-09-29-06: Final Plat for Maple Lane Addition No. 2. This proposed two lot subdivision contains approximately .477 acres. The property is located at 1423-25 and 1445-47 Maple Lane. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Michael and Penny Harrell, property owners of record.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Harris to approve the variance request and approval of the Final Plat for Maple Lane Addition No. 2 and forwarding it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and right-of-way, subject to the following conditions:

1.      Provision of a revised Master Street Tree Plan graphic that shows the 15’ public utility, pedestrian and roadway access easement.

2.      Provision of a Public Improvement Plan showing sanitary sewer service for Lots 1 and 2 if the City Commission does not grant a waiver to Chapter 19, Section 214 of the City Code.

3.       Execute an Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for future street and sidewalk improvements.

4.       Provision of the following fees and documentation:

a.      Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and

b.      A Temporary Utility Agreement

 

 

Motion passed unanimously, 10-0.