PC Minutes 12/20/06

ITEM NO. 14:           RS10 TO RS5; .954 ACRES; 523-543 ROCKLEDGE (MKM)

Z-11-28-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately .954 acres, from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) to RS5 (Single-Dwelling Residential). The property is located at 523-543 Rockledge. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for LC Anuff, property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Mary Miller introduced the item and summarized the recommendation.

Staff recommended approval of the approximately .954  acres from RS10 (Single-dwelling Residential) District to RS5 (Single-dwelling Residential) District and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval based on the findings of fact found in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions:

1. Staff recommends conditioned zoning to ensure the development will be compatible with existing, established, neighborhood along Rockledge Road;

2. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.

Ms. Miller stated that the property is situated so that it is suitable as both ‘infill’ and ‘transition’ development. Horizon 2020 recommends that both transition and infill development should be compatible with the area and this project would be compatible with the neighborhood.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mr. Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, agreed with the staff report and thought there were good suggestions. He felt condition 1 was a little precarious. He also stated that this is a “for sale” project and that the goal has always been a product that is buildable and sellable. Mr. Werner said that zoning is driven by required lot width and that the depth makes the lots almost 7,000 square feet. He went on to say that the access will be three shared driveways and that the sewer will be extended to touch all lots, which will be a major cost. He stated that the sanitary sewer runs down the middle of Rockledge which means a manhole will have to come up Rockledge. The only reason he pointed this out was because it will mean a significant infrastructure update that will have to be done with this plan, which will improve the area. In discussing the conditions suggested for the zoning, he agreed with the 25 foot setback, shared access, and would probably be okay with the landscaping. He was unsure about the condition of using 50% masonry. He felt that Single-Family homes would be a win-win situation for everyone and that the homes would be $200,000 homes, not cheap tiny houses.

Commissioner Burress asked for Mr. Werner to show him what the site plan would look like.

Mr. Werner put drawings on the overhead projector for the Commission to see how six homes would be located.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. John Immel, on behalf of Dick and Betty George who have lived at 521 Rockledge for 50 years, stated that the reason the property had never been developed was because the people who owned it did not ever want to develop it. All the surrounding lots have been developed. He felt that a zoning of RS10 would be much more compatible with the existing area. He stated that there is reference in the staff report that this project is a slight change but he felt it was a major change for the people who live in that area. Any change that doubles the density of a piece of ground cannot be categorized as slight and he requests the denial of this request.

Mr. Dan Simons, 444 Country Club Terrace, stated that the character of the neighborhood is large lots and that the neighborhood has already taken a hit with an RO zoning. He was also concerned that the yards would be very steep and cause drainage issues.

Mr. Nathan Kolarik, 545 Rockledge, just moved to the neighborhood a month ago and is concerned about the three access points. He felt that double the amount of housing would lead to double the amount of people and traffic.

Mr. Dick George, 521 Rockledge, stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for 50 years and that development on his north side is RO. He did not feel that it was right to go into an upscale neighborhood and build two houses on a 75 foot lot and wondered if any neighborhood in Lawrence was safe from developers.

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Werner stated that the houses will be a variety of single-family homes and that they are not trying to damage anything in the neighborhood.

Mr. Jeff Arensberg stated that he has great interest in making these homes a quality project. He is historically restoring the large house directly behind the lots in question. The rezoning would be in this project’s back yard. He felt this would be a ‘phenomenal’ infill development. The average sale on Rockledge has been $133,000 in the last two years, so these proposed houses would be above market value. He feels that zoning of RS5 would be appropriate for the area.

STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS

Staff had no closing comments.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Finkeldei inquired about the elevations of the backyards.

Mr. Werner responded that they grade for a walkout basement.

Commissioner Burress wondered if they would financially be able to develop with three lots.

Mr. Arensberg stated that the six lots currently being proposed would be relatively big lots and if they went down to three lots they would be more expensive homes.

Commissioner Burress asked what the price range would be.

Mr. Arensberg replied $350,0000.

Commissioner Burress asked if the land was not rezoned would the value be the same.

Mr. Arensberg stated that when the lot cost is multiplied by two it would be a killer.

Commissioner Harris asked staff how the neighborhood ended up with a commercial property across from a residential area.

Ms. Miller replied she was not sure.

Ms. Stogsdill said that she was not sure of the date but believed that the commercial property had been there since 1966.

Commissioner Harris asked if it would be possible to strike a compromise between the three and six lots.

Ms. Miller responded that it may be possible with attached dwellings such as three structures that would look like three houses. She suggested a different zoning category might work better.

Commissioner Burress asked if they did condition zoning would it be the first time they have completed one and if so, could these conditions be put on the plat?

Ms. Miller thought it would be possible with the exception of the condition regarding architectural features.

Commissioner Burress inquired if any town in Kansas has done this type of conditional zoning where it cannot go on a plat?

Mr. John Miller stated that conditional zoning has occurred in Olathe, Shawnee, Lenexa, etc., but that the very specific issue being discussed would need to be checked on.

Commissioner Krebs asked for a sense of what type of conditions have been placed in other communities.

Mr. Miller gave an example from Overland Park regarding limitations on non-residential use, drive way locations, turn lane locations, cash deposits for escrows, grading conditions, etc. and that he could look at it if necessary.

(Commissioner Eichhorn abstained from this item and left the room)

Commissioner Harris agreed that the density was not a slight increase and that she agrees with the applicant on some aspects of the project. She was persuaded by the people who live in the neighborhood and had sympathy for the encroachment. She went on to say that she could not support double the density, only a slight increase in density.

Commissioner Harkins stated that he has driven down Rockledge many times and that it had potential to be a great neighborhood. He felt the vacant lots do not add to the appearance of the neighborhood and are not well maintained. He thinks this is a convenient location for housing and that people living in these houses will not have to commute far to the college or downtown. He felt that the City would be better off keeping people living in the core of the City and that the project looked like a creative solution to using a piece of property that can be valuable. The land is not valuable at all at this point and he thinks that this is a reasonable way of developing this area.

Commissioner Burress stated that there has to be a tradeoff. Moving toward more infill and higher density creates problems with the neighbors but infill does not always keep in total consistency with the neighborhood. If the houses going in will be more valuable then in economic terms the neighbors should not see a loss in house value. He felt that this project would be in the best interest of the City.

Commissioner Haase felt that when they start doing infill development it is tricky and if they can do it successfully then they should have the neighbors on board to create a band of transition. He was concerned that they are trying to retrofit transition into a difficult area. There is no support from the neighborhood and these houses might attract commuting couples, which will increase traffic during rush hour. He stated that he would oppose this rezoning even though the applicant has gone to great effort.

Commissioner Finkeldei stated that he generally supports infill but that this was a unique situation because it is located in the middle of a neighborhood. He felt it would be difficult to sell larger homes on Rockledge across from commercial property and that something should be created on the land.

Commissioner Harkins felt it would be an enhancement to the neighborhood value.

Commissioner Erickson stated that the neighborhood is being piecemealed out and that she could support RS7, which would be more in keeping with the neighborhood.

Commissioner Krebs agreed with Commissioners Harkins and Burress about favoring infill development, and they are trying to make use of existing land and add more houses to the core of the City rather then elsewhere.

Commissioner Finkeldei inquired to Mr. Werner if he could get four full lots across using RS7?

Mr. Werner responded that he could get 4 lots with RS7.

Commissioner Harris stated that she would prefer RS7 and did not know how to address that.

Ms. Stogsdill advised the Commission that they have the opportunity to use the Lesser Change Table that sets out zoning and that it falls within what is being requested. They could adjust the findings based on the Lesser Change Table and recommend RS7 instead of RS5.

Commissioner Harkins said that he lives a block from a neighborhood that has smaller lots and that they are nice looking.

Commissioner Haase asked if using the Lesser Change Table would require the applicant’s approval.

Ms. Stogsdill stated that they could certainly ask the applicant if they are interested in that and that ultimately the City Commission would decide that.

Mr. Werner said that a compromise of five lots might be possible.

Commissioner Haase asked Mr. Werner if he would accept an RS7 rezoning?

Mr. Werner stated that RS7 would be better than what it is currently zoned, but that it would be more troublesome.

Motioned by Commissioner Harris to recommend approval of the rezoning from RS10 to RS7, subject to the conditions in the Staff Report and using the Lesser Change Table.

Commissioner Harkins stated that the motion is significantly different than what the applicant requested and that the Commission should at least vote on the applicant’s rezoning request first.

Commissioner Erickson wanted clarification on the conditions because the same conditions would not be needed with a rezoning of RS7.

Commissioner Haase asked if it would be possible to poll the neighbors that testified earlier to see how they feel about rezoning the property to RS7.

Commissioner Krebs stated that she thought the neighbors would be in support of RS7 rather than RS5.

Commissioner Harkins did not feel that polling the neighbors was appropriate procedure.

Commissioner Harris stated that she did not know if the conditions would be appropriate for this type of zoning.

Commissioner Erickson said she would second Commissioner Harris’ earlier motion to rezone using the Lesser Change Table with the first two conditions of the staff report.

Ms. Miller advised that they would probably only want condition 2 as the first condition applied only to RS5 zoning.

Commissioner Harris said that this would be acceptable.

Commissioner Krebs asked for a fresh restatement of the motion.

Commissioner Erickson stated that the setback for RS7 would be the same as RS10.

Commissioner Harris said she was comfortable with the motion as it stood.

Commissioner Krebs asked for brief comments from the neighbors.

Commissioner Harkins pointed out that the other neighbors who were not at the meeting were not aware of what they were doing and that the Commission needed to act on the original zoning request.

Commissioner Krebs stated that there was a motion on the table and asked any neighbors with comments to speak.

Mr. Dan Simons said he would still be opposed to the rezoning and that it was not acceptable.

Mr. Arensberg, also owns property in the neighborhood, stated that it seemed strange that the Commission would change the zoning without asking the applicant.

Mr. John Immel stated that the George’s position has not changed and that the neighbors want the property to remain as three lots.

Commissioner Haase pointed out that the applicant did not agree to RS7.

Mr. Nathan Kolarik stated that four lots is definitely better than six.

Commissioner Harris withdrew motion due to lack of support.

ACTION TAKEN

Commissioner Harkins motioned to approve the original applicant rezoning request from RS10 to RS5, subject to the conditions in the Staff Report.

Motion died due to lack of 2^nd.

Motioned by Commissioner Haase, seconded by Commissioner Harris to recommend denial of the rezoning request, based on the impact on the character of the neighborhood and increased traffic on Rockledge.

Motion carried 5-2-1, with Commissioners Burress, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase and Harris in favor. Commissioners Harkins and Krebs opposed. Commissioner Eichhorn abstained.