PC Minutes 7/26/06

ITEM NO. 10:           REVISED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ABERDEEN ON 6TH STREET; SOUTHEAST CORNER OF W. 6TH STREET & STONERIDGE DRIVE (SLD)

 

PDP-01-02-06:  Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6th Street.  This proposed multi-family planned residential development contains 104 proposed apartment units and four duplex units on approximately 9.59 acres.  The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of W. 6th Street and Stoneridge Drive.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering for MS Construction Co., Inc., property owners for record.  (Deferred from May and June PC meetings).

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Day, Staff, gave an introduction and overview of the revised Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6th, including changes from the previous plan.   She described the project as a proposed multi-family development and is currently zoned “A” pending recording of the plat. The area south is zoned UR, approved for single family residential development.  There are two access points to the subject property, one to Stoneridge Drive to the west and a cul-de-sac southeast of the property, Winthrop Court.  The current right-of-way needs to remain the same due to the existing infrastructure.  The plan calls for providing a restricted gate. for emergency purposes only, which provides secondary access but not uncontrolled access.  Staff typically looks for secondary access and the proposed gated entry provides a compromise to have access for an emergency but not free flow access.  The development has been reduced from 111 units to 108.  Duplex units to are planned to provide a face to Stonecreek Drive.  Ms. Day noted there were several communications and attachments for this item and included a summary of comments.  The concern and opposition specifically apply to Winthrop Court. 

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Paul Werner, architect, appeared for the applicant along with Phil Struble, project engineer.  Mr. Werner outlined key components of the project which included adding two duplexes to Stonecreek Drive and removing three units from the clubhouse.  The overall concept is to have the smallest buildings on the south perimeter of project.  Mr. Werner agreed there should be two access points and to have a connection between the two parts at the north end to minimize cut through traffic.

 

Finkeldei questioned the access gate on Winthrop Court, asking if the gate would be close to the duplexes and wanting to know the type of gate is involved.

 

Werner referred to the drawing and indicated the probably location of the gate.  He said the type of gate is currently in question but realizes they need to come up with a reasonable proposition.  Mr. Werner would like to meet with the Fire Department and arrive at a compromise that looks good and is workable.  Mr. Werner noted there is significant drainage area in the property. 

 

Erickson noted there were several letters from neighbors indicating concerns about stormwater and asked about the location of the detention ponds.  

 

Werner indicated detention ponds will be located on both sides of the drainage channel.  The stormwater currently is not controlled and water flows everywhere. 

 

Eichhorn noted the proposal currently does not have a culvert.

 

Werner replied that it would be an open channel.

 

Finkeldei asked Staff why there should be two access points.

 

Day stated the reasons for two access points are the ability to disperse traffic; it provides additional connectivity and addresses emergency services concerns.  Multi-family areas typically contain secondary access.

 

Burress stated a letter was received from one of the neighbors which indicated they had heard from three engineers who gave three different points of view as to the impact of the project on stormwater.  One stated the problem would remain the same, one felt the problem would worsen and one indicated the stormwater situation would improve.

 

Werner replied that he had not heard about the comments from the engineers.  City engineering staff critiqued the plan thoroughly. 

 

Harkins questioned whether there is a plan for traffic signals for this project, specifically on Stoneridge at 6th Street.

 

Mr. Struble, Landplan Engineering, replied that they have agreed to participate in a benefit district for the placement of signals on W. 6th Street.  KDOT criteria state that an intersection must meet the warrants and the City is going to create a benefit district. 

 

Harris asked who would have access to the gate on Winthrop Court. 

 

Day stated that emergency personnel would have access.  The Fire Department said they would prefer not to have Winthrop Court gated but they would be able to work with it if there was an opticon sensor or crash gate.  They do not want to have to stop to open a gate. 

 

Werner replied that it was not his understanding that this would be automatic gate with Opticon system. 

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING

Gwen Klingenberg, West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, showed photos of the property. Ms. Klingenberg referenced a corridor and modulation study by KDOT regarding traffic on 6th Street.  The traffic volumes along the 6th Street corridor will   significantly increase as motorists will seek alternative routes to the highway.  This will cause congestion.  Response time for emergency services will be greater and access to businesses will be more difficult.  The concern is that if Winthrop is an open street, Stonecreek Drive will turn into a major corridor.

Mark O’Lear, West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, stated the major concern of the neighborhood is the safety of their children.  The plan calls for 108 units in addition to the 18 homes that currently exist on Stonecreek Drive.  The additional units will increase traffic 5 fold.  Mr. O’Lear explained that he spoke with the three engineers and they had differing opinions.  The concern is about future development on stormwater flow.  The culvert currently has runoff from 8 houses and frequently is half full during heavy rains.  Regarding the gate, the applicant has repeatedly stated they do not want Winthrop Court open, the Planning Commission and Staff has said it is not desirable.  None of the participants seem to want the gate until now. 

 

There are many unanswered questions.  Only a few changes have been made; to take 3 units from the clubhouse and not putting retaining walls on the KDOT easement.  The neighborhood would like to know what building materials are going to be used and the general appearance of the development.  The developer has stated it will be upscale and fit in with the existing neighborhood but the Planning Commission has given direction that it must be affordable housing.  There is no clear direction on whether the drainage will be more or less, whether there will be a crash gate or no crash gate.  The residents would be more at ease if they could express their concerns and give input.

 

Finkeldei asked if the neighborhood would accept gate access for emergency responders. 

 

Mr. O’Lear replied that the neighborhood would accept the gate but for emergencies only. 

 

Harkins questioned why the fire department would want access from Stonecreek.

 

Stogsdill, interim director, stated the secondary access is necessary due to the potential issues with the bridge.  If access from the bridge is blocked, there must be a strategy for emergency responders to readily access the development. 

 

Day added that it depends on the type of emergency, particularly in a fire situation.  The fire department needs 360° access around all buildings. 

 

Harkins asked about the stormwater drainage from upstream and whether the current plan of widening the easement is sufficient. 

 

Day stated the Public Works Director and the City Stormwater Engineer have looked at the stormwater concerns.  They have had meetings with the residents and there is currently a fairly substantial drainage easement.  The culvert is sized to carry the total amount of flow that would potentially come through the area during a heavy rainfall and with additional development. 

 

Tim Van Leer, 5213 Branchwood Court, stated concerns that the project does not conform to the established character of the neighborhood.  He cited Horizon 2020 which prescribes buffering and transition; this project does not conform to that standard.  Stonecreek Drive is a local street and should not be accessible for multi-family units. 

 

At the March Planning Commission meeting the applicant indicated they did not need access to Stonecreek Drive.  The Fire Department agreed there can be a padlocked gated entrance.  The neighborhood is interested in preserving current property values. 

 

Kevin Loos, 913 Stonecreek Drive, spoke regarding the ebbs and flows of the architectural aesthetics of the project.  Aberdeen on Clinton Parkway is not in character for this neighborhood.  He would like to see plans on how the duplexes will be integrated into the neighborhood and would like to see stipulations. 

 

Veronica Howard, 912 Stonecreek Drive, stated her property backs up to the proposed development.  Her concern is that the pool has been relocated from the center of the project to the back of the development, face to face with the family homes.   Ms. Howard said she is worried about the noise and light facing the single family homes.    She also questioned the elevations that have not been provided to the current homeowners.  

 

Cory Lange, 901 Stonecreek Drive, said his property backs up to the detention ponds along the property line. He is concerned that there will not be room for berms and landscaping along the boundary.  Mr. Lange questioned the elevation of the project and where the rooftops will be in relation to street level.  Horizon 2020 was enacted for a reason, to guide the community Mr. Lange did not see how this project fits into the Horizon 2020 vision.

 

Chris Conroy, 1013 Stonecreek Drive, stated his major concern is stormwater.  The drainage easement is already 75-80% full.  Mr. Conroy said he thinks the stormwater issue is worth further study to ensure the safety of the children in the area.

 

Mark Turner, 925 Stonecreek Drive, stated this project is not in spirit of Horizon 2020 and cited  policy 4.3 in regards to opening Winthrop Court which discourages opening up traffic from higher density uses into a local street.  He said a crash gate is fine as long as it is not removed in the future.  Mr. Turner feels there should be sufficient transitioning for the project.  In the current plan an apartment building sits 50 feet from a house. The culvert and stormwater flow are additional concerns. The culvert has been almost full and if a tree limb or other obstruction lodges in the culvert there may be serious consequences. 

 

Alan Cowles said homes in the area have already experienced wet basements; additional roofs and asphalt will worsen the situation.  Traffic on 6th Street is already an issue, there is too much on too small a piece of ground.

 

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Werner stated the project contains all 2 story buildings with 1-2 bedroom units.  If the property remained single-family there would not be detention ponds which would not benefit the area.  The project will improve the channel and provide detention.  

 

 

 

 

Regarding elevations, Mr. Werner said an effort has been made to keep the buildings low in order not to tower over the single family homes.  A crash gate will be installed and the developer is willing to accept all the conditions contained within the Staff Report.

 

Day stated the conditions in the Staff Report were structured to address the specific issues regarding the gate, traffic, KDOT and buffering.  The Planning Commission can condition building materials as part of the submission for the Final Development Plan. 

 

Day clarified that the duplexes are 3 bedroom units all other units shown are 1 and 2 bedrooms.

 

Werner agreed the duplexes will have 3 bedrooms with garages on the backside of the units.  There will be no curb cut on Stonecreek.

 

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Harris asked Mr. Werner to address concerns regarding the orientation of the pool.

 

Werner replied that at one time the pool was going to be the focal point of the development but as pools are used only 4 months of the year they moved the location to the rear of the development.  The site plan was reworked to get away from the easement and the area backing up to homes was the best location for that amenity.  The smallest buildings were placed against the property lines. 

 

Eichhorn asked if bollard lighting was possible for the pool area.  He also questioned whether the buildings were going to be two stories and what materials were going to be used. 

 

Werner replied that bollard lighting was planned for the pool area and the buildings are going to be two stories.  Building materials have yet to be determined. 

 

Harkins asked Staff to show the direction of the drainage on Stonecreek Drive and if there are easements through the yard.

 

Day gave a visual description of the creek and tributary locations.  She stated there are easements through the yard and detention ponds would be added to the north as the area is developed. 

 

Harkins stated he is convinced that this project isn’t going to exacerbate the flooding problem but believes there will be flooding in the neighborhood in the future.   

 

Harris asked if there would be landscaping by the detention ponds and if it is accurate to say that there is an apartment building 50 feet from a house. 

 

Werner responded that there would be landscaping but it needed further detail to be refined.  The apartment will be located 60 feet from the property line, not from the house. 

 

Burress said that visual simulations of elevations are affordable and asked if the Planning Commission could request elevations.

 

Day replied that  Landplan was asked to provide elevations for view from the right-of-way throughout the project. They have not been provided.

 

Burress asked if the Planning Commission can condition that the elevations be provided with the Final Development Plan.

 

Day responded affirmatively.

 

Jennings said he did not have an issue with the buildings being lower in elevation.  The lower the buildings are in relation to 6th Street the better as the lights will not shine into the 2nd floor units.  Taking the secondary access into account, it is not simply fires that are emergencies; tornados have to be considered as well. 

 

Harris asked Harkins why he does not believe this project will affect the stormwater. 

 

Harkins replied that he is taking the engineers’ word that they designed detention ponds to handle the stormwater.  The biggest concern is not having an overall drainage plan, that it is being designed on the fly.  That impacts future options for planning and the preference is to have a drainage plan in advance of development, not a plan that occurs piece by piece.  

 

Burress stated that if there had been comprehensive planning in the beginning, the end result may have been the same.  The idea is to build dense dwellings against the major corridors and gradually get less dense towards the interior.  The issue with this project is the interior houses were built first but the dense dwellings were not planned in advance.  The situation cannot be entirely fixed to the homeowners’ satisfaction at this time.

 

Finkeldei said the issues with the gate, the density within the zoning, the addition of greenspace and drainage have been addressed but the elevation and building material questions have not been answered.  He asked Staff if these issues will come back in the Final Development Plan for discussion and consideration.

 

Day commented that the Final Development Plan is typically a non-public item. 

 

Burress questioned whether the plans could be published for the neighbors to review and have the opportunity to comment.  He would like to see the drawings of the elevations and building materials or he is going to vote against it. 

 

Haase concurred with Burress and would like to see additional information prior to making his decision.  The Planning Commission can turn down the Preliminary Development Plan with instruction to the developers to work with the neighborhood to provide information on elevations and building materials.  Haase also commended Harkins for his observations concerning the drainage policy.

 

Burress stated one of great benefits of having a single commission that does casework and policy review is that examples arise that can change policy. 

 

Finkeldei questioned why Haase recommended denying the Preliminary Development Plan is more advantageous that denying the Final Development Plan.

 

Haase stated that there is no public input for Final Development Plans.  It is preferable for the neighbors to have the ability to access immediate answers to their questions and to be able to address their concerns. 

 

Jennings asked to see photographs of the neighborhood.  Given what is in the existing neighborhood, it is reasonable to assume the architects can come up with something compatible in color and texture to the existing structures. 

 

Burress questioned whether rejecting the Preliminary Development Plan would affect the applicant’s ability to resubmit the project.

 

Day replied the applicant would not have to wait a year for resubmittal on the development plan.  She noted that the publication of the rezoning is pending action on the development plan.

 

Harkins stated he was swayed by Commissioner Jennings comments and this does not seem too complicated to solve.  The applicant listened to the concerns of the neighborhood and should not come back with an intentionally incompatible project.  There is no real reason to defer or delay this project and there are reasons to move forward.  

 

Jennings said he understood the need to see elevations but the exterior décor should not be complicated.  

 

Burress asked the ramifications of changing precedence and rejecting a Final Development Plan. 

 

Stogsdill stated it would make the Final Development Plan process less predictable; the City has been working on making the process more predictable for developers and for the neighborhood.  She suggested writing a condition that is compatible with what the Commission would like to address then judge what is submitted to see if that is compatible. 

 

Haase voiced concerns with the relocation of the clubhouse and pool in proximity to the single family homes.  He would like to see that aspect of the plan redesigned to place the pool back in the center of the complex. 

 

Harris agreed with Haase’s concerns.

 

Burress suggested that buffering still needs to be addressed and that he would prefer to see drawings before passing the Preliminary Development Plan. 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Finkeldei moved, Jennings seconded, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on Sixth based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:

 

1.      Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to show a restricted gate along Winthrop Court per City Fire and Public Works staff approval.

2.      Provision of a note that states: “Access gate shall be for emergency purposes only. General vehicular access immediately to Stonecreek Drive from the development shall be prohibited.”

3.      Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for intersection and geometric improvements to W. 6th Street and Stoneridge Drive.

4.      Provision of a note that states: “Provision of public improvement plans including all grading required in the KDOT easement shall be provided for and approved by KDOT prior to the submission of a Final Development Plan for any improvements within the W. 6th Street permanent easement.”

5.      Provision of a note that states: “A highway permit and encroachment agreement shall be executed with KDOT as part of the Final Development Plan.”

6.      Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan that includes additional screening along the south side of the development west of the drainage easement per staff approval;

7.      Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan that shows installation of larger size (10 gallon minimum sizes) planting along the south side of the development for lots that abut Stonecreek Drive per staff approval.

Added during Planning Commission meeting:

8.      A note stating that the elevations and design simulation be provided for view with the Final Development Plan which is compatible with the design and materials of the existing neighborhood based up the discussions we’ve had today; 

9.      The design of the gate be compatible with the design and materials of the existing neighborhood;

10.  The Final Development Plan show roof styles and building materials be compatible with the design and materials of the existing neighborhood;

11.  The pool is redesigned to orient it away from the single family homes.

 

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Haase stated that with this many conditions, he is very close to a denial.  He would prefer a situation where the neighbors can get involved. 

 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to recommend approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on Sixth based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject conditions.

 

Motion failed, 4-4 with Burress, Erickson, Haase and Harris in opposition.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Harris stated she would like to see public input.

 

Finkeldei commented that the assumption is the developers would meet, look at the designs and there would be another discussion at the next meeting as to whether the developer has arrived at something compatible.  The public would have input and discussion. 

 

Eichhorn said the next iteration would not be public hearing.

 

Stogsdill replied that the Planning Commission can provide direction to make it a public hearing item.  

 

Burress stated the Planning Commission should not set a precedent of making Final Development Plans public hearing items. 

 

Harris said there is a sense that there has been some disagreement between the applicant and the neighbors.  It would be a good idea to have the public come and speak regarding this item again.  

 

Harkins asked whether the item can be left on the Agenda and ask the developer and neighbors to meet prior to the next hearing. 

 

Haase stated that a denial produces the same result; the hearing would be replicated in a public environment.

 

Stogsdill commented that the Planning Commission items go to the City Commission three weeks after the Planning Commission meeting.  When the item is recommended for denial, it moves forward as a recommendation of denial to the City Commission.  The City Commission then has the option of returning the item to the Planning Commission, overturning the Planning Commission recommendation or they can agree with the Planning Commission.  If the project is denied by the City Commission, the applicant must begin completely begin the process again.  They must submit an entirely new project.  A suggestion could be to defer the item, place it on the August agenda and hear it again at that time. 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Harkins, seconded by Haase to defer the Preliminary Development Plan to August. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Burress advised Werner that he is going to have to produce drawings and asked if that was feasible. 

 

Werner commented that he would like to try coming back in a month.

 

Jennings stated there is no problem with elevation or drawings but does not feel it is right to have control over the project, it is overstepping the Planning Commission’s bounds.  

 

Haase said there is a clear indication that the project is in contradiction to Horizon 2020, which compels the Planning Commission with a duty to mitigate.

 

Stogsdill asked the expectations of Staff in August if revisions are returned by the applicant.  Staff can provide copies of elevations but will not have time to review revisions and prepare a report. 

 

Eichhorn replied that it is fine for Staff not to provide a report and the neighborhood would have to understand that the majority of the arguments have been mitigated.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Harkins, seconded by Haase to amend the previous motion and defer the Preliminary Development Plan to the August 30th Planning Commission meeting.

 

Motion passed, 6-2 with Finkeldei and Jennings in opposition.