PC Minutes 3/13/2006

ITEM NO. 7:        PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ABERDEEN ON 6^TH STREET; SOUTHEAST CORNER OF W. 6^TH STREET & STONERIDGE DRIVE (SLD)

PDP-01-02-06:  Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6^th Street.  This proposed multi-family planned residential development contains 115 proposed apartment units on approximately 9.59 acres.  The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of W. 6^th Street and Stoneridge Drive.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering for MS Construction Co., Inc., property owners for record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Day, introduced the item, a preliminary development plan for an area that Staff had been looking at since early 2005. The Staff Report outlined a series of rezonings relevant to this proposal that had taken place on adjacent parcels.  The Staff Report also summarized the proposed development as it related to its surroundings and provided clarifying examples of other types of development.

In response to concerns raised consideration of the rezoning for this property, Ms. Day brought attention to the distinction explained in the Staff Report between “buffering” and “transition.” 

Staff requested the Commission provide direction on the issue of secondary access to the subject property from the local street, Stone Creek Drive.

Ms. Day described the location and property characteristics and reviewed the previous development applications for the property. She noted that this application concerned only the northern portion of the overall property along 6^th Street.

Staff compared this proposal to the Canyon Court PRD as a reference, because Canyon Court is often sited as an example of incompatible multi-family/single-family development mix.  Elements examined included building setback, building height, and elements such as multi-story designs, patios and recessed balconies as they related to rear yards of abutting single-family lots.  A similar comparison was made to the Parkway Apartments PUD. 

Staff discussed the existing and proposed drainage way and referenced concerns expressed by the Director of Public Works regarding drainage in this neighborhood when he met with the Commission in Study Session.  It was noted that stormwater run off is currently contained within the drainage easements located along rear yards of the existing single-family lots. 

Ms. Day spoke about Winthrop Court, which was constructed as a stubbed street.  She identified two storm inlets on this street that would be used for the proposed development and explained how this would impact necessary right-of-way and easement division between the property owner and the applicant upon approval of a Final Plat.

In Staff’s opinion, providing a second access point for residents would be beneficial and was of crucial concern for Emergency Services.

Ms. Day said that, based on Staff’s understanding of Commission direction during the rezoning consideration, the proposal did not provide adequate transitioning within the development.  It instead placed the burden of providing transition upon future development or redevelopment of other sections of the overall area, held under the same ownership.

Staff asked the Commission to provide more specific direction for the project, suggested they revisit the topic of density, particularly since the City Commission had approved rezoning with the condition of not more than 12 dwelling units per acre.  It was pointed out that the applicant used a significantly different method for calculating density than was typically used.  The standard calculation method resulted in a higher density than was claimed by the applicant.

Staff recommended denial of the application, because conditions to bring the proposal into a (Staff) supportable state would be numerous and overly complex.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, and Phil Struble of Landplan Engineering spoke on behalf of the applicant.  Mr. Werner said he had believed the applicant and Staff were closer to agreement than he was now to understand from the Staff presentation.  He stated for the record that this proposal was significantly different from the Canyon Court PCD and he would like to discourage further comparisons between the two developments.  He suggested that Tuckaway or Briarwood would be more suitable for comparison with this application.

Mr. Werner asked the Commission to consider how far this proposal had come from its original submittal.  He discussed the modification from office to residential uses, the changes to place multi-family homes along the highway, the elimination of RM-D uses from the proposal, the reduction in density from 15 units per acre (submitted) to 12 units per acre (City Commission approved) and the steps taken to address concerns about back yards lining the gateway entrance.

Mr. Werner described the site plan, noting the use of building exteriors, orientations and parking areas to buffer noise and facilitate pedestrian circulation.  He expressed surprise at comments regarding transitioning vs. buffering, saying he did not know of any PRD’s using single-family or even duplexes as a mixed-use element.  Additionally, if the land to the south were included in this proposal, he did not think buffering /transitioning would have been raised as an issue.  Finally, the development team felt that the proposed back-to-back relationship of single-family uses was generally appropriate.

Mr. Werner addressed the issue of the clubhouse, saying the pools would be used about 3 months out of the year and, even with 400 tenants, would not be utilized by many individuals.  The applicant did not think it would be appropriate to “shove the pool next to a neighborhood”, per Staff’s recommendation.

Mr. Werner explained the applicant’s density calculations, which were done based on a deduction of drainage courses from the overall square footage.  He then discussed various density potentials based on other housing types.

Mr. Werner said the applicant felt there were still a few issues to be discussed, such as the location of the clubhouse, but he believed this was a good proposal.  He added that the applicant decided that secondary access to Stone Creek would be provided once he was told that, without secondary access, all of those buildings would have to be sprinkled to meet fire code.

Mr. Werner responded to questioning that the optional footbridge over the drainage easement was a public improvement element that was shown on preliminary development plans in case it needed to be discussed and possibly eliminated during other planning stages.  Several factors would determine whether a footbridge, an industrial bridge, a sidewalk or no connection at all was provided.  He said that, if a connection of some type was constructed, it would include handrails for safety.

Staff was asked to address the applicant’s method of calculating density after deducting drainage areas.  Ms. Day explained that the Code specifically dictates the reduction of the overall square footage by the amount of the drainage easement.  The applicant has, in this case, deducted a larger area identified on his plan as a drainage course. 

There was discussion about what steps the applicant would have to take in order to significantly reduce the drainage easement by enclosing the drainage element. This would bring the density calculations of the applicant and Staff into rough agreement and would allow the applicant to develop the units proposed without violating the 12 unit/acre density cap placed by the City Commission.  Haase asked which option was preferable:  enclosed drainage with conforming density, or an open drainage system with a little laxity on density?

It was noted that the lots to the south of the subject area were not developed yet, but were platted for single-family homes.   It was suggested that it was important to consider that area as if it were already developed as platted, and noted that the adjacent area was under the same ownership as the subject property.

Haase said it seemed there were a number of issues that could still be cleared up between the applicant and Staff, and that Staff appeared to be asking for direction to help achieve that goal.

Ms. Day commented that, without project-specific direction, Staff typically tried to apply conditions or direction provided for similar development proposals.  In this case, the transitioning Staff was trying to accomplish was based on the Commission’s direction in the Legends of KU project, Hutton Farms and the Stonegate Subdivision.  Staff felt the Commission had been consistent throughout multiple developments with their direction on building types and transitioning.

Staff requested specific direction on the PUD section of the code that addressed reducing residential acreage to account for major drainage courses.

Mr. Werner pointed out that, although the City Commission revised the Planning Commission’s recommendation to put an overall density cap of 12 units/acre on the entire subject property, that rezoning had not yet been published. 

The applicant did not want to place duplexes along the south side of the project, feeling the property was too small for than many different housing types.  He suggested two-story duplexes with one-bedrooms on the west side would make a better-looking development.  He requested guidance from the Commission about what housing types should be included.

Ermeling said she understood the challenge of mixing housing types, but she hoped to see “something new and different.”  She suggested using architecture to make multi-family buildings look like houses, to ease the visual transition to actual single-family development.  Mr. Werner responded that this concept had been discussed but the applicant was concerned how this would be received by the City.  He verified that proposed elevations of the “big house” concept would be included on the final development plan.

Mr. Werner asked to make it clear that the applicant would prefer not to have the secondary access onto Stone Creek Drive, and could make the project work without this curb cut.  However, the Fire Department had the final say in that matter and it appeared that the secondary access would need to be included.

Mr. Werner responded to questions about pedestrian-friendly elements:

• Handicapped-accessible ramps were proposed at several locations but not striped crosswalks.
• A recreational path on Stone Ridge provides pedestrian access to W. 6^th Street, but slopes make additional sidewalk less desirable.
• The applicant would like to provide the bridge as shown to cross the drainage easement, rather than putting sidewalks along both sides of the main bridge.

5 minute recess

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mark O'Lear, 917 Stone Creek Drive, spoke on behalf of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association.  He showed a video of the neighborhood’s stormwater culvert during and following heavy rains in August 2005.  He noted that the culvert appeared to fill suddenly, not gradually as the rain continued.  The residents were concerned that children playing in the area might be caught unawares.

The neighborhood was also concerned that the culvert was half-full during this rain event.  Mr. O’Lear asked if the City was sure the culvert could handle the additional water runoff generated by the proposed development.

Mr. O’Lear said the applicant had stated since the beginning that he did not want anything but two-story buildings and that has been reflected in every plan the neighborhood has seen.  Mr. O’Lear said Mr. Werner’s comments tonight seemed to indicate he was being “limited” to two stories by the Commission.  Mr. Werner said he did not agree with this interpretation of his comments.

Mr. O’Lear said the Fire Department was not “forcing” the applicant to provide secondary access at Winthrop Court.  Sprinkling the buildings and constructing a crash gate was a viable alternative.

Mr. O’Lear said the neighborhood understood this was a difficult piece of ground to work with, but suggested the property owner should have been aware of that fact when he purchased the land and the residents should not be punished for the applicant’s lack of “homework.”

It was established that no neighborhood residents had attended the presentation by the Public Works Director about stormwater in this area.  It was generally agreed that this presentation made it clear that development on the subject site would either have no impact on or would slightly improve existing stormwater conditions.

Tim Vanleer, 5213 Branch Wood Court, agreed with Mr. O’Lear’s comments about the secondary access point.  He said the applicant claimed the Fire Department was making them provide the secondary access for safety reasons, but opening this point created other safety concerns – specifically increased traffic through a family-oriented neighborhood.

An unidentified speaker living at 913 Stone Creek Drive also agreed with previous concerns about opening Winthrop Drive, noting the City Commission comment that a crash gate would be an acceptable alternative. 

The speaker said the combination of single-family, duplex and a church all on one street seemed “odd” for a residential street and did not fit the continuity of the rest of the neighborhood.  He asked how this development would look abutting Stone Creek and mentioned past discussions about the need for more-than-the-minimum buffering.  He referenced Tuckaway as an example of good buffering and Aberdeen as an example of poor buffering.

The speaker said he understood the market demand for multi-family development, but he agreed with Commissioner comments earlier that the “same old, same old” was getting tiresome.  He asked that some creativity be applied to make an aesthetically appealing change.

Corey Lang, 901 Stone Creek, said Staff had been most helpful in answering his questions about this project.  He said his primary concern was that it appeared that the tallest buildings were proposed on significantly higher grades, emphasizing their height even more and making them visually intrusive.

Mr. Lang also expressed concern about the added traffic implied by this kind of development, particularly if the secondary access were opened.

Mr. Lang said this development seemed to be trying to include too many incongruous elements into too small a space, but he was afraid they were too far into the development process to do anything about it.

An unidentified speaker at 921 Stone Creek Drive spoke about abutting properties, saying he was concerned that lack of buffering, balconies and grading differences would significantly reduce privacy on individual lots.

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Werner clarified his comments about the choice to pursue two-story units, saying that this was his client’s preference, with the understanding that this did not mean a design where the basement was considered the first story.

Mr. Werner said the plans should have been more clear than some sort of access to Stone Creek would be included.  However, he stressed that full access was not needed or requested.

It was noted that Phil Strubel with Landplan Engineering was available to answer any questions on the storm water, but he (Struble) felt that the Public Works presentation hopefully addressed most concerns.

Mr. Werner responded to questions from the Commission:

• Changing to a four-plex will solve the density problems raised by Staff.  The applicant suggests four-plex’s designed as two-story buildings with a smaller footprint than is currently shown on the development plan.  
• There is an odd number of residential units proposed because the clubhouse is included as a unit.
• A single-story clubhouse would look out of place among two- and/or three-story residential units.  Putting more residential units on the second floor of the clubhouse had been discussed.
• Taking the second floor off of residential units does nothing to address the building footprint and spacing, which (the applicant thought) was the issue at hand.
• It would take additional study to see if a four-plex would use a smaller footprint than an eight-plex. 
• A revised four-plex might eliminate Staff’s density concerns.
• Moving the building further from the area approved for single-family development would certainly address some of the concerns raised, but moving vehicle activity further to the south was undesirable.  Car lights would intrude upon adjacent homes, even with additional landscaping, because of grading.
• Keep in mind the adjacent property to the west is approved for single-family development but nothing has yet been constructed.
• Various kinds of landscape materials can be investigated, but mature plants are more costly, their placement must be carefully planned around detention areas, and evergreens are currently subject to disease in this area.
• The applicant felt that the back-to-back orientation of buildings and the placement of the detention pond provided adequate buffering.  This element should not be confused with transitioning – the adjacency of a completely different building type.

STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS

Ms. Day reiterated Staff’s request that the Commission provide direction on the following points:

• Density Calculation - In Staff’s opinion, the density calculation should be based on the full drainage easement.  If a different method for density calculation was used, it should first be formally amended into the Code. 
• Secondary Access to Stone Creek – This access is clearly critical to the Fire Department, but this is not the only reason Staff recommends including it.  Staff consistently recommends secondary access in subdivisions of dwelling units with more than 50 or more dwelling units.  Multiple options have been discussed with the applicant including some kind of gated access.
• Transitioning vs. Buffering – Some clarification had come through tonight’s discussion, but Staff was still not prepared to recommend approval.  The Commission had the option of approving the proposal with conditions regarding this element.

It was verified that the Commission had a fairly wide scope of ability to condition building, scale, and massing.  Staff agreed with the applicant that duplex uses along the entire south side of the property was not a desirable design.

Ms. Day responded to questioning that changing to a four-plex would sufficiently address Staff’s concerns about density.  Ms. Stogsdill interjected that substituting a four-plex across the street from the single-family homes still left transition questions about scale and massing, even though the footprint was smaller than currently proposed.  She suggested access alternatives for those units.

Mr. Werner responded to questioning that the applicant would prefer to gather more Commission comment on the proposal tonight and return with a revised preliminary development plan.  He asked if the item could be deferred for one month.  Staff expressed concern that this would not allow adequate time to review the revised plans.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Haase said if the item were not deferred, he might need to recuse himself from the vote because he did not feel capable of making a decision at this time.  He did not like to delay the project for two months, but Staff had legitimate concerns.

Haase said the community in general needed to be leaning toward developments of this type, but it needed to be done right and he did not know “how to get there.”  He asked if the Commission was prepared to approve the proposal with what would necessarily be a lengthy list of conditions.

Eichhorn said he had reservations about the “large home” concept if it meant using more than two stories, especially abutting the neighborhood.  It may fit the Code yet not be the best option. 

Eichhorn commented that, if deferred, the applicant should return with detailed elevations showing how the buildings would fit the area in massing scale and style.  He also suggested the low-key lighting be considered for the clubhouse.

Jennings said he preferred building continuity, but he did not care for the gradation of densities.  He was not sure what could be done to address the neighborhood concerns about views between buildings (re: privacy), which were a continual concern from single-family neighborhoods City-wide. 

Ermeling discussed using lighting and landscaping to mitigate the impact of the clubhouse.

Riordan said that, in his experience, intrusive lighting was more bothersome than the issue of second story views.  Although having the buildings closer was not ideal, he preferred not moving the buildings.

Harris, alternately, encouraged the applicant to look at moving the building that may be a four-plex further from the road.

Erickson stated support for the two-story four-plex concept, noting that the majority of homes in that area were two stories.

Burress stated support for the following:

• Smaller building footprint, further from the road and two stories
• Creation of a corner building with two facades
• Using bedrooms as a buffer

Burress said that a church use can generate fairly intense traffic at given times and he did not necessarily agree with the Code that this use was always appropriate in residential zoning districts.

Burress also pointed out that detention ponds were used to lower the peak level of stormwater, not to reduce it’s flow.

There was discussion about a suitable time frame for deferring the item.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Ermeling, seconded by Harris to defer the item to the April meeting.