PC Minutes 11/13/06 DRAFT

ITEM NO. 5:                          REVISED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ABERDEEN ON 6TH ST; SE CORNER OF W 6TH ST & STONERIDGE DR (SLD)

 

PDP-01-02-06:  Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6th Street.  This proposed multi-family planned residential development contains 108 proposed apartment units and including 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.  This item was deferred from the July Planning Commission meeting.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Sandra Day, Staff, provided a summary and update of the project.  She indicated the project has been seen by the Planning Commission multiple times over several months.  Ms. Day outlined the location of the property, the land use considerations and the various iterations the project has undergone.  She said the applicant was asked to rework grading improvements on KDOT exclusive easements due to KDOT prohibitions. The project is required to have access to a collector or arterial street along Stoneridge Drive as a Planned Unit Development.  The secondary access for the project is for emergency purposes only.  Ms. Day stated the applicant will provide a crash gate that prohibits direct access to Winthrop Court which will be subject to ornamental and aesthetic improvements to the gate in the final development plan (FDP).  There will be an opticom device or some other device to allow emergency access to the project.   Ms. Day stated the July version of the preliminary development plan (PDP) included a detention pond with small berming; the current project reconfigures the detention pond, moves it further back and provides a berm adjacent to the existing residence.  There will be more landscaping which will be larger in scale to compensate for the growing season.  Ms. Day indicated the clubhouse and pool were relocated further to the center of the project and away from the surrounding existing single family residences.  There has been dialogue regarding the need to have some type of architectural elements which is reflected in condition 5 in the Staff Report.  The buildings will have architectural elements on multiple sides which will be visible to public streets and residences. 

 

Applicant presentation

Todd Thompson, Thompson, Ramsdell & Qualseth, for the applicant, MS Construction said he was asked to become involved several months ago to work with the neighbors and address concerns raised by the neighborhood.  He stated that not all issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of everyone involved but they had made some progress.  Mr. Thompson outlined the issues that have been addressed by the applicant including:

·         Moving the pool and clubhouse to the center of the development.

·         Changing the configuration of the buildings in the southeast corner.

·         Changing one of the buildings to duplexes.

·         Allowing emergency access only in the southeast.

·         Limiting buildings to two stories.

·         Addressing elevation concerns along 6th Street by adding retaining walls.

Mr. Thompson stated the project has changed in an effort to address concerns raised by the neighborhood.  Many conditions previously imposed by Staff have been integrated into the project and there are currently 5 recommended conditions in the Staff report; the applicant has agreed to all of them.  Mr. Thompson asked the Commission to approve the PDP based upon these factors. 

 

Paul Werner, Werner Architects, for applicant stated that a great deal of effort has been made to keep buildings low to the ground so they do not tower over the homes.  Duplexes have been added to Stone Creek Drive and the smallest buildings, the one bedroom units, will be closest to the residences.  He said the clubhouse and pool have been moved to the center of the project and they no longer overlook anyone’s back yard.  The units on the second floor of the clubhouse have been eliminated.  Mr. Werner stated the detention area was reworked to add retaining walls which allow the building to be moved farther away from the existing home.  Berms and larger pine trees will create a buffer in the area.  Mr. Werner said the Commission previously requested to see renderings of the buildings which the applicant provided.  The renderings are fairly schematic and they will go into greater detail in the FDP.  The color of the buildings is still to be determined.  The stone facing will be added where it will be most visible to residents and passersby.  Mr. Werner stated that an effort was made to place apartment balconies and patios in areas that do not face the existing house in the area and the shortest distance between the apartment building and the existing house is 114 feet. 

 

Mr. Thompson commented that enhanced materials will be used where the buildings will be visible to the outside of the complex.  The applicant’s position is that they will do whatever the City would like them to do in regards to the access point and they will meet with the Fire Department and Public Works to ensure the crash gate does not slow down emergency services. 

 

Comm. Harris questioned who would own and maintain the gates.

 

Mr. Thompson replied that the gate would be owned and maintained by the applicant.

 

Comm. Burress recalled residents indicating there were three different opinions on stormwater issues from three different engineers.  He questioned whether there is testimony on record that the stormwater issue will be worsened by this development.

 

Ms. Day said she remembered a resident stating an engineer said the stormwater would be made worse by the development.  The City Public Works Director and the Stormwater Engineer have both commented that the drainage issues have been addressed.

 

Public Hearing

Mark O’Lear, 917 Stonecreek Drive, said that he was the resident who spoke with the engineer who stated that the stormwater situation would be made worse and the engineer was Christopher Storm with Landplan Engineering.   Mr. O’Lear said he did not feel any of the issues brought up by the residents have been resolved by the applicant.  He felt the crash gate was a done deal over 8 months ago but this is the first time he has seen it agreed to by the applicant. Mr. O’Lear said that one of the Planning Commissioners said this plan does not meet Horizon 2020 guidelines and he is questioning why it meets those guidelines now.  Mr. O’Lear stated he has learned the lesson that he should never buy a home at the edge of town. 

 

Comm. Eichhorn asked what Mr. O’Lear saw as the biggest issues. 

 

Mr. O’Lear outlined the major issues as follows:

·         There is no transition between the last house and the apartment building next door.

·         The crash gate is not shown on the plan.

·         There are still 3 opinions regarding the drainage and stormwater issue. 

·         The materials that will be used in construction are still in question.

 

Comm. Eichhorn asked why drainage and stormwater was still on the list of issues when  all of the City engineers reviewing the project have stated the drainage works now and is adequately sized. 

 

Mr. O’Lear commented that he would not be concerned with the drainage question if everyone involved said the same thing but he did not feel any engineer refuted the 3 different opinions. 

 

Veronica Howard, 921 Stonecreek Drive, spoke regarding the elevations of the project.  She stated that the apartment buildings will tower over the existing homes, particularly over Mr. Lange’s home.  Ms. Howard said that when she purchased her home she asked the realtor how the adjacent property was zoned and if there were plans regarding development of the property.  She was told that the property was zoned single family and only later found out that it was zoned agricultural.  She would not have purchased the property if she had known about the agricultural zoning.  Ms. Howard asked the Planning Commission to deny the preliminary development plan as she did not believe this to be the best gateway to Lawrence. 

 

Cory Lange, 901 Stonecreek Drive, said that in a previous meeting, a statement was made that regarding transition, earlier precedence sometimes takes effect.  He questioned whether removing transition in this circumstance is creating a precedence for future development.  Mr. Lange asked the Commission to consider the history of this developer and showed photographs of other developments and the landscaping issues. 

 

Comm. Burress asked what Mr. Lange meant by transition.

 

Mr. Lange said that he considers transition higher density to lower density.

 

Comm. Eichhorn stated that transition and height keep coming up as issues.  He said with the acreage and open space provided in this plan and the current zoning, the developer could possibly choose to build taller buildings for density and asked the residents to consider whether this plan is better than what could potentially happen.

 

 

Gwen Klingenberg showed additional photographs of the existing Aberdeen on 23rd landscaping.  She stated that rental vacancy rates are high and rising and there is an overbuilt market.  She expressed concerns that if building continued on the west side of the City, the apartments on the east side will be lost.  She stated this is not the right time to build more multi-family as the population is not growing as fast as the number of vacant buildings.

 

Comm. Harkins asked if Ms. Klingenberg was reading her own comments or quoting another source. 

 

Ms. Klingenberg said that she received the information from Professor McClure at the University of Kansas. 

 

Tim VanLeer, 5213 Branchwood Court, said that Winthrop Court was created to access single family homes, not multi-family.  He stated concerns that this plan wants to put multi-family dwellings adjacent to a high end neighborhood.

 

Kevin Lowes, 913 Stonecreek Drive, said that he would like assurances that this plan is going to work out.  He commented that the trust level has eroded and that the situation has become contentious.  He stated he was concerned that the neighborhood be maintained. 

 

Alan Cowles, 1121 Stoneridge, agreed with the neighbors that spoke before him.  He said the stormwater issues are not yet resolved and that there has been a great deal of double talk rather than a good faith compromise.  He asked the commission for a clear plan that is concrete and addresses the neighbors concerns regarding traffic, the crash gate and stormwater issues.

 

Comm. Burress stated that he was at a loss as to how to address the trust factor which seemed to be the most prevalent concern for the evening.  He advised the neighbors that if a condition appears in the development plan, it is legally enforceable and can be trusted. 

 

Mr. Cowles said that the plan needed to be made clearer.

 

Closing Comments

Mr. Thompson stated that there is never going to be complete agreement by all parties on all the issues and he believes it is a misstatement to say that there has been no progress.  He continued, all staff conditions have been incorporated into the plan or been made conditions.  He suggested that those concerned with issues in regard to other properties report those issues to the City’s enforcement staff and demand compliance.  Mr. Thompson said that the design criteria and enforcement are at a higher standard than 12-15 years ago.  In regards to transition, the south building will be at essentially the same elevation as Mr. Lange’s home and the north buildings will be carved into the hill.  He stated the design criteria for the buildings themselves will be outlined in the Final Development Plan. 

 

 Comm. Jennings asked to see the site section again.

Paul Werner showed the graphic of the site section and indicated they did not survey Mr. Lange’s property. 

 

Comm. Burress asked if someone was present from Landplan that could speak to the concerns regarding the drainage issues.

 

Chris Storm, Landplan, stated that he was the engineer that did the drainage study and worked with the City Engineer and the Stormwater Engineer.  He indicated all of the studies performed have met with the City of Lawrence stormwater criteria. 

 

Comm. Burress asked if the stormwater runoff was going to get better, become worse or stay the same as a result of the new development.

 

Mr. Storm said that the situation is not going to get worse.  He said the difference between the single family use and this plan is that the multi-family use will be detained and there will be a net runoff.  There will be more runoff but the discharge will be level to that of single family development. 

 

Comm. Burress commented that if there were only single family homes, would there be more runoff than if the property were undeveloped but the criteria would not be any worse than if single family was built.

 

Mr. Storm said that the runoff would be equivalent to single family development; there would be more runoff but it would not be detained. 

 

Comm. Eichhorn asked Mr. Storm to confirm that if the plan were for a single family development, the stormwater runoff would be the same. 

 

Mr. Storm confirmed that Comm. Eichhorn was correct.

 

Comm. Jennings said that following Mr. Storm’s logic, every home in the neighborhood worsened the stormwater situation. 

 

Mr. Storm answered in the affirmative. 

 

Comm. Harkins asked Staff for a brief history of the zoning of the property.

 

Ms. Day replied that rezoning requests began as early as 2005 in 3 areas.  The preliminary plat was completed in the late 1990’s and extended a cul-de-sac that showed lots on the east which is where Winthrop Court was originally established.  The Planning Commission initiated a planned residential development with 12-15 dwelling units per acre.  The City Commission further restricted the dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 12 across the board and limited the height to 2 stories.  The zoning is contingent on the approved preliminary development plan.  It has been approved but has not yet been published.

 

Comm. Finkeldei asked about the zoning of the church property to the east.

 

Ms. Day replied that she believed it to be single family.

 

Comm. Finkeldei asked about access to that property. 

 

Ms. Stogsdill stated that  a siteplan was approved with the access at Stonecreek and Branchwood.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Jennings said he has faith in the Stormwater Engineer’s report and he believes the design improvements will help the stormwater situation.

 

Comm. Krebs commented that the majority of the issues seem to be with transition and height. 

 

Comm. Jennings asked how many feet of rise will exist between the home and apartment. 

 

Mr. Werner said they used 2 foot lines to indicate rise.

 

Comm. Jennings asked how many feet of rise will exist once berming is complete. 

 

Mr. Thompson said the elevation went from 1019 to 1026 feet.

 

Comm. Eichhorn commented that the cut will provide a great deal of material for berms. 

 

Comm. Haase said that the applicant has complied with all the suggested changes from the last Planning Commission meeting.  He said he would ideally like to see more green space but the plan has gone too far to do that and he would like to move the preliminary development plan forward.

 

Comm. Burress said he wanted to explain the situation to the neighbors before moving forward and outlined the following:

·         The engineers are not saying the development will make the stormwater situation better but they are not saying it is going to be worse.  In terms of improving the situation, the neighbors need to lobby City Hall.

·         The sense of distrust should be addressed.  While there cannot be a promise that the obligations will be met, there can be a promise that there will be a mechanism in place for enforcement of the development plan. 

 

Comm. Finkeldei asked that the following language, “which are in conformance with general architectural character of surrounding area”, be added on to condition 5 in the Staff Report.

 

Mr. Werner agreed.

 

Comm. Harris stated she was pleased with the majority of changes made to the plan but she expressed a concern with transition; primarily that there will be 32 units abutting 4 single family lots. 

Comm. Haase said he remembered a discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting asking for duplex transition and determined it was not an aesthetically pleasing design.  The applicant was asked to address transition with landscaping and berming.  He believes the applicant has done the best they can to ensure compliance with what they have been asked to do. 

 

Comm. Krebs said she believes it is past time to ask for different transition.  Row homes that could possibly be more aesthetically pleasing could have been requested at an earlier stage in the process.

 

Comm. Jennings commented that other than the one existing home owned by Mr. Lange, the other areas are owned by the developer.  The apartments will be built prior to any other development on the adjacent lots which will mitigate the element of surprise.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Haase, seconded by Comm. Jennings, to recommend approval of the revised 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 and with Condition 5 as amended by Comm. Finkeldei:

 

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

5.      Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that states: “The Final Development Plan shall include specific building elevations that note building materials to be used for roof, siding, and facing elements visible from the public streets and viewable from abutting properties which are in conformance with general architectural character of surrounding area”.

 

          Motion passed 9-1 with Comm. Harris in opposition.