City Commission minutes 7/16/06
Consider the following items associated with Prairie Wind Single Family Homes, 2620 Haskell Avenue:
a) Consider approving, subject to conditions and use restrictions, PDP-05-04-06: Preliminary Development Plan for Prairie Wind Single Family Homes. This proposed planned residential development contains approximately 3.04 acres and proposes 17 single-family detached homes. The property is generally described as being located at 2620 Haskell Avenue.
b) Consider adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning request, and authorizing drafting of ordinances for placement on future agenda for Z-05-12-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 30.4 acres from RS-2 (Single Family Residential) District to PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development) District. This property is generally described as being located at 2620 Haskell Avenue.
Mary Miller, Planner, presented the staff report. The proposal was to place 17 single family homes on a one lot development and access would be off of Ryan Court. There were three waivers being requested with this preliminary development plan and two of those waivers were from the peripheral boundaries since it was an infill development in a small area. She said they were requesting to have the northern boundary line reduced from 35 feet to 25 feet and for a section where the lot line jets in to go from 35 feet to 30 feet.
There was considerable concern from the neighbors about storm water drainage. The properties to the south currently were experiencing storm water issues and the City Storm Water Engineer was requiring the applicant to provide drainage swells along the south and the east to direct the storm water into the detention basin and into the inlets along Ryan Court.
The applicant would need to provide adequate, common open space in the interior of the development because right now they did not have that space, but the applicant would work with this plan and provide enough adequate, common open space.
Mayor Amyx asked if the requirement for drainage on this particular property was going to be adequate enough to give ample protection for other properties.
Miller said the City’s Storm Water Engineer believed that it would give ample protection for other properties. At first the engineer was not aware the properties to the south were having problems. Therefore, the engineer scheduled a meeting with the neighboring residents to the south and was requiring more of a ditch than what was originally required.
Mayor Amyx said the drainage ditch in the depressed area that was going to hold the water would go to the other end of the property. He asked if the water would be in a catch basin that would be carried out through a pipe and where was water going to go.
Miller said the water would go down to the inlets by Ryan Court and that would be directed right out to Ryan Court. All of the water would be directed to a detention basin and the basin would hold that water while the rest of the water was flowing through the inlets. The maximum amount of time would be 24 to 48 hours and then the water would be released into the inlets. The only water that would actually stay in the detention basin would be water below the inlet level. It was a secondary release and it would hold the water until the rest of water had flowed away.
Mayor Amyx asked if the other inlet area would hold the water for 24 to 48 hours.
Miller said yes, it was more of a detention basin or a dry bottom pond and was approximately 3 to 4 feet deep.
Alan Belot, representing the applicant said the utility plan was a separate plan and was not their plan, but just a planning document. The utility plan had a catch basin on one side of Ryan Court that was piped to the curb inlet that went under the street and dumped into a detention basin. All of the stormwater run-off for the neighborhood that was having problems would be routed through structures into the detention basin, which then would be taken out through a hard pipe to the existing storm sewer on Allison Avenue. The analysis of that storm sewer was that it had more than enough capacity to handle what they were going to put into it. The problem was there was a vacant lot where the water sheets across when it rains and would build up in backyards. When they develop that area, they would resolve that issue and catch the water and run it to a small basin where it would be held until it was ran out through a structure so the water that was running off those yards would not be there anymore.
Mayor Amyx asked if they were going to control the water on this site.
Belot said they were going to control the water.
Belot said at the end of the Planning Commission meeting it came up that a fence be built around the property, which seemed odd because they were trying to build neighborhoods within neighborhoods which they had done and placed sidewalks on both sides of the streets so they had that connectivity from neighborhood to neighborhood. He asked why they would wall this neighborhood off from everyone else. He said after the meeting took place, the neighbors indicated they did not want that fence and he asked if that condition could be removed at this stage.
Mayor Amyx said yes.
Belot asked if he could request if the fence requirement be removed. He said there was a neighbor along the northern boundary that had a daycare next door and that neighbor thought a fence would be nice. He said he would be glad to work with that neighbor, but because of that one request walling off the entire neighborhood did not make for a very good neighbor.
He said regarding the conditions that related to the existing trees, those conditions were unclear and in some cases could be conflicting and confusing. He thought those comments came before he was able to go out to the site and locate the majority of the trees and place them on his drawing. He said he had indicated which trees would and would not be saved. A note on his drawing indicated the existing trees would be protected and he would be glad to add a note, according to City standard. He asked that those two conditions be removed because he already fulfilled the requirement and he did not think they were necessary and could be confusing and conflicting in the process that he still had to go through.
Commissioner Schauner said the condition stated to: “list the measures to be used during construction for protection of existing trees.” He asked if Belot was suggesting a substitution for that language.
Belot said he had shown the existing trees that were going to be preserved and he showed the trees that were going to be removed. He already had a note that the land developer and home owner should make every effort to protect and preserve as many existing trees as possible during construction, including roots and existing grade within the drip line. If the tree was damaged or destroyed during construction, then replacement should be required. It was the same note he had for the Hanscom/Tappan project and it seemed to work well on that project. He said they had lost a couple of trees, but those trees were replaced.
Mayor Amyx asked if Belot had already met that particular condition because it was shown on the development plan.
Belot said yes.
Commissioner Schauner said he was not sure if that condition was a reference to all the trees or just the trees that were left that were marked for retention on the plan. He was not sure what the difference was between what Belot was saying and that condition. That condition stated “protection of existing trees”, but it did not say just those trees the plan chose to leave. It just said existing trees and asked if there was a different set of trees.
Belot said there were a number of trees at that location and a debate could happen about which trees could or could not be saved. Someone who had to approve this could decide that a tree in a particular grove needed to be preserved. In order to comply with the plan, he would need to redesign the whole project. He said he had done his level best to preserve as many of those existing trees as possible because it was to his benefit. He would rather not get into a conflict, in the future, about which trees could or could not be preserved because he would need to redesign the project, after the public hearings.
Commissioner Hack said Belot’s request seemed fair. She said Belot had marked all the trees he possibly could within the confines of the plan and would do everything he could to preserve every tree he could.
Belot said there were a significant number of trees that were volunteers that had grown up to a good size and were not the kind of trees you would necessarily save. He also had a provision for the homeowner to add an additional shade tree to each lot after the homeowner completed the home, not in addition to the street trees. He said they would have trees all over the place on that subdivision.
Commissioner Schauner said he assumed the trees that were in the back lines of the back property were substantial trees as opposed to a 2 inch or 2.5 inch caliper tree which you would put in someone’s front yard.
Belot said the new trees would be smaller.
Mayor Amyx asked what kind of language they would need if it was already drawn on the development plan.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to hear from staff in what they understood that language to mean when it discussed “during construction for protection of existing trees.”
Miller said Belot said he would try to protect as many trees as possible and thought it meant fencing a certain perimeter around the base of each tree within a certain distance. She said measures like that were passed on to the developer or whoever was building those homes that they see why they had to preserve those trees.
Commissioner Schauner said what he liked about that ideas was that people would be doing the actual physical work and might not have seen the plan or heard any of their conversation. The more physical protection they could provide for an essentially non-replaceable item was something he wanted to see.
Belot asked if he could resolve that with adding a note “per the City standards.”
Commissioner Rundle said he thought they had established standards since this had come up before. He thought the standard was for them to fence up to the drip line.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to see that happen so there was less confusion on the work site about what and what was not to be saved.
Mayor Amyx said they needed to be clear in the language so that everyone understood.
Commissioner Schauner said he was not sure the language said exactly what Miller would like. He would like to see the language about existing trees fleshed out a little bit more.
Commissioner Hack asked if this language came from other previous plans they had done.
Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said the issue would have come from the City’s Landscape Supervisor. She was going to suggest that condition C be expanded to say, “For protection of existing trees proposed to be retained,” so that it was clear and she thought they could probably resolve that issue with Belot and the City’s Landscape Supervisor and planning staff. She thought the revised plan came in and had not had a chance to be reviewed. They did not know directly from the Landscape Supervisor whether what had been shown adequately met with what the review comment had been. It was her understanding the revised plans did not go back up for review before packets were ready for Planning Commission. She thought they could resolve the issue, but staff was not suggesting saving every tree on site, but the trees that were proposed to be saved, they wanted some indication on how they were going to be protected those trees so they would be saved.
Belot said he did not want to get into a set of construction drawings for the trees, which was his main concern.
Stogsdill said she did not think that was their indication.
Belot said if that was on record, that was fine, but that was his concern.
Commissioner Hack said she could understand Belot’s concern. She said Belot indicated he wanted to save those trees, but what could the City do to ensure those trees were given the best quality care during the construction phase, which would conform to the layout.
Belot said without getting into a lot of detailed drawings and things about each individual tree and its grade and drip line.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not think they were on the same page. He thought Belot came up with a list of trees he wanted to save, which might be a different list than what the Planning Staff or landscape people might have in mind to save. He did not know the answer to that, but once a tree was gone, it was gone. He wanted to make sure they had some clearly understood agreement about what would be saved, how those trees would be marked for saving, and what protection would be installed to save those trees during the construction process.
Mayor Amyx said the agreement needed to say an agreement between the developer and the City that would include Planning Staff and the City’s Landscape Supervisor.
Commissioner Schauner said yes.
Mayor Amyx said that was the language that was needed. He said Belot needed to know exactly what trees needed to be left and he had to have an agreement with City staff.
Belot said he had an agreement and if they ratified that plan, those trees had to be saved.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it showed what trees were not being saved. He wanted to know how many trees were there that were not going to be saved.
Belot said all of the trees on the Haskell frontage were to be saved. There was a line of trees that run down the driveway between the houses that were going to be saved. There were some trees in the back that were going to be saved, which were the larger, more significant trees. There were a number of volunteer trees and there was no way they could take time to locate each one those trees, but if there was a significant tree, he would save that tree. He was not in disagreement that trees were a benefit to a subdivision, especially mature trees because it made the property sell. It was not to his benefit to tear those trees out and he did not think he needed help from staff to preserve the trees on his property.
Commissioner Rundle said that experience had told them that if they had compaction in the drip line from heavy equipment parking or if a dozer scrapes the bark off of a tree, the odds of that tree being saved go down and sometimes it could almost be assured, although it was designated to be saved, if there was enough of those activities that occur, the tree was gone. He thought what they were saying to keep that drip line off limits from compaction.
Belot said he agreed, but some of the standards that were published and if he followed them to preserve a tree, there would be very little land left to develop.
Commissioner Rundle said he was not interested in unreasonably trying to make Belot preserve every tree. He thought the trees Belot designated seemed clearly to be the right trees
Mayor Amyx said he did not know the kind of language they were looking at.
Belot said he was concerned about creating a set of construction documents just for preservation of the existing trees.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not think there was any interest in that, but thought there was an interest in having the City’s Forester work with Belot and those construction people to fence off those trees which were marked on the site to be saved and directions from the Forester be implemented to ensure the greatest survival.
Belot said that was fine.
Mayor Amyx asked Stogsdill if she could come up with that language.
Stogsdill asked if the Commission cared for her earlier suggestion for condition C, which was “list the measures to be used during construction for protection of existing trees proposed to be preserved on this site.” She said it would clarify that it was not all the trees, only the trees that were identified to be saved. She still thought Condition 2 was applicable because the plan had not yet been reviewed following revision by the City Landscape Supervisor.
Belot said okay and now that they had an understanding that it would not involve construction drawings for preservation, he felt more comfortable about that, too.
Commissioner Highberger asked about the length of the cul-de-sac.
Belot said the cul-de-sac was 490 feet.
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
Marcella Krones, a resident that lived south of this project, said they met with Belot and were satisfied with his comment on the drainage. What they were really concerned about was traffic. She said there was only one way in and out of that location and the traffic would be directed on to 26th Street. She said they also received all the traffic off of Natalie Drive dumping onto 26th Street and then trying to get onto Haskell Avenue, typically took 5-10 minutes. She said a study performed by KDOT indicated between 13,700 and 16,400 vehicles per day were going that direction to 31st Street. She asked if there would be enough parking in this area to take care of all of the vehicles. If there were 17 houses, most houses had at least 2 vehicles that would be another 34 vehicles at 2-3 trips per day that would be an awful lot of traffic through that area. If there was no parking for the residents in the area or their visitors, she asked if the parking would go over to 26th Street. She said 26th Street had parking on both sides, which made it very narrow and two cars could not get through if cars were parked on both sides of the street.
She also said the sewer issue had not been discussed. She asked if the sewer was going to be able to handle the additional housing. She said on the northeast corner, there was one driveway for three houses.
Jerrold Schinze, Lawrence, said if a fire truck wanted to get into that area, they would need to call ahead to get a parking spot. He said a fire truck would not even be able to park on the street because they would be blocking someone’s driveway. He said it was a poor set up and people could get hurt or perhaps even die. He said he had a petition that was signed by 63 people, mainly the people surrounding this area and they took those signatures to the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission tried to sell the neighborhood on duplexes, but the neighbors talked the Planning Commission out of that idea. That was when the Planning Commission came up with the idea of 17 houses, but he could not picture 17 houses on 3.3 acres.
When the Fire Chief came out to inspect the area, the Chief indicated that No Parking signs were needed which was something Belot did not mention. He said he and the neighbors were against the plan. He said all they wanted was being zoned RS-1, but he knew it was probably too late because they were talking about trees and draining water. He asked if they could picture children playing in that area and asked what would happen if a child fell into one of the drainage areas. He said some of those people already had drainage problems.
He asked if it this plan had already been approved. He thought the City Commission should take a long look at this plan and find out if the Fire Chief would be able to get into that area.
He heard a rumor from a man who worked for Harris Construction Company that lived in his neighborhood that Belot had already sold the lots and made a proposition to Harris Construction to sell the lots for $50,000 because he figured they already had the zoning and it was fair game. He did not know if it was true or not, but Harris Construction Co. said there was a letter.
Earl Stafford, Lawrence, said he was the only house that actually faced Ryan Court. He said part of his problem with the development was the no curb cut on Haskell Avenue. That would turn the normally quiet street, into an area of about 136 vehicle trips per day. He said that would be two cars per house, four trips per day, which was information that came from the Planning Commission. The sidewalk ran east and west, and there was no sidewalk on the north side of 26th Street. The sidewalk was on the south side. The reason the little boy was killed off of 25th Street was that he was crossing the street to the sidewalk; there was no sidewalk on his side of the street. He would like to see a curb cut onto Haskell so that traffic could come out on a peak of a hill instead of the side of a hill. Half of the traffic that came off of Ryan Court would go east and half of the traffic would go west, which would be 50 to 75 cars which would be negotiating onto Haskell Avenue, which would be really difficult if they wanted to make a south turn.
As far as the volunteer trees that came up on the south side of that property, those trees seemed to have come in 17 years ago and they all volunteered to dress in columns of about four and were not all volunteer trees, but were planted for specific purposes. He would like to see as many of those trees protected as possible and he recognized the fact that not all of them could be saved.
Mayor Amyx asked about the reason there was one driveway for three houses.
Belot said he did not like garages on streets and one of his design considerations on this project was to try to get as many of those gaping mouths off of the streetscape as possible. He said at the corner, he had taken the garage off of the private access so it was not part of the streetscape. He said it was a 20 foot wide driveway, which was basically the same width as the right-of-way of the street. He said he could take one house off of that driveway, but he would have to exit it out onto Ryan Court, and aesthetically he did not think it was a good idea. He thought it looked better to have houses with no garages. He said his next project would not have any garages on the street.
Mayor Amyx asked if his next project would be done with alleys.
Belot said yes.
Commissioner Highberger asked Stogsdill if street access was prohibited by their current policies.
Stogsdill said Haskell was an arterial street and staff emphatically discouraged local streets from accessing that street. It would have been a subdivision variance requirement to have a local street intersect with Haskell.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the overall density of the project was barely higher than the RS-2.
Stogsdill said yes.
Mayor Amyx asked if there could be parking on that street.
Stogsdill said just on the fire lane side. A hammerhead was also there for access for a fire truck to turn around.
Mayor Amyx asked if there was not going to be any on street parking between the driveways.
Belot said not between the driveways on the western border on the left hand side of the plan, but he extended the access down so that there were three parking spaces down at the end. The no parking was at the curve and met the uniform fire code requirements. The Fire Marshall wanted that on the plan to make sure it got there.
Mayor Amyx said in looking at this project regarding infill development and wanting to encourage single family development, he thought the decision the City Commission needed to make was whether the preliminary plan met that spirit. He thought this was a hard piece of property to develop, especially with the constraints of drainage problems and if the drainage problems were addressed concerning the neighboring properties. He asked if the traffic moving through the area met the spirit of the single family neighborhood.
Commissioner Schauner asked Belot if this was a Homeowners Association, and if so, what would the covenants require the Homeowners Association to be responsible for in the area of common area maintenance.
Belot said it was a public right-of-way up to the end of Ryan Court and the Homeowners Association would be responsible for the private access streets, common driveways, drainage easements, detention area, and the common area throughout the front of the properties.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the street would be built to City standards.
Belot said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if curb and gutters would be the same.
Belot said yes, it was called out on the face of the plan. It would all have to go through engineering review before they could start.
Commissioner Schauner said he continued to be concerned about assessing to Private Neighborhood Associations significant responsibilities that in the end would come back to the City for a financial fix. He said 17 property owners being asked to share significant infrastructure burdens or if it was built to City standards, maybe the City would fix it if it was broken.
David Corliss, Interim City Manager, said City staff would maintain that street because it was a public street.
Commissioner Hack said the Homeowners Association was taking care of the public space outside of their own private homes and the public street.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the responsibility of the Homeowners Association.
Belot said they would be responsible for gutters, commons areas, and the driveways.
Commissioner Schauner asked what common areas would there be. He asked if there was anything else besides the basketball court.
Belot said the access drive and both ends of the roadway.
Commissioner Schauner asked if those would be the responsibility of the 17 homeowners.
Belot said yes, that portion, but not the street.
Commissioner Hack said infill development was always difficult, but it was the direction the community wanted to go because they discussed not wanting sprawl. Yet, infill development continued to be a difficult hurdle to go through. She said Belot had done a good job of designing this plan with single family homes. She knew that Haskell and access to Haskell was a concern and she did appreciate that. One of the things they talked about in the agenda review was ultimately they were going to have to look at some additional signalization on Haskell as they grew to the south and she thought that was something that was not part of Belot’s situation, but was something they would have to look more closely at in that corridor just as they had others. She thought this plan had come with very strong Planning Staff and Planning Commission approval and she felt that it was the right way to go and she supported the plan.
Commissioner Schauner said he found the staff report interestingly contradictory. He said on the one hand it said that Horizon 2020 discouraged concentrations of high density multi-family infill in neighborhoods in policy 3.3e and defined low density residential as 6 units per acre or less and medium density residential at 7.15 units per acre. RS-2 permits 6.22 units per acre, which was the high side, this was 6.56 units per acre in a largely residential RS-1 area that at least abuts it. They were asking the neighbors on 26th Street to accept a significant increase, or change, in their neighborhood character. He appreciated that it was a difficult three acre parcel, but he did not think they should pray on the altar of high density just because it was a popular thing to do. He did not think it was good policy, on this location, to ask those neighbors to accept that sort of increased neighboring obligation. It was always troubling when a development comes in and needed three variances or more because it pushed the envelope on two or three issues. Those were always signs that they ought to step back and take a real hard look at it. He thought this was one plan that if they stepped back and took a very hard look at it, this development would not pass the test because it was too much. If this was 9 units instead of 17 units, they could provide significantly better elbow room.
He was also very concerned about the obligations created on the Homeowners Associations even though there was not street obligation in this place, but they did have common area, drainage, and retention basement obligations. He would bet a significant amount of money that the people who bought a house would not understand they had an obligation to any kind of infrastructure maintenance. If this was planned as a low, affordable housing unit, his suspicion was the people who buy there would not have enough money in their budget to come up with an assessment in 10 years to fix what infrastructure was their responsibility. He did not think it was a plan which, despite all the work, it was too much in too little of space and pushes too many envelopes. He did not think it was good planning and did not think it was a development in 10 years they would look back on and say it was a good idea.
Commissioner Highberger asked staff to describe the zoning in the surrounding area.
Stogsdill said to the south and east the properties were zoned as RS-2 or RS-7. To the north and the west across Haskell, those properties were zoned what was RS-1 or RS-10. To the northeast, there was RM-D, which was now RM-12D, duplex zoning, and the lot that would be directly to the southwest corner and the properties to the south of 26th Street were zoned RM-1, which was now RM-12. The majority of the single family zonings were in the RS-2, 6.2 maximum, but the ones along the north were of a slightly lesser density.
Commissioner Highberger said he was struggling with this plan. He said he did not have a concern with the density and he did not think it was greatly incompatible with the surrounding uses. He did not have a strong concern about the slight increase from RS-2. He did not like the cul-de-sac. He appreciated the fact the garage doors were offset. He said they all still drove cars and some on street parking would be essential for people to come over and visit and it would impact other people. He said he trusted the storm water engineers that the retention facilities would at least not hurt people now and maybe help. He wished there was a way to provide better street connection, but looking at the surrounding map, he did not see it. He said he realized this plan would add more cars on 25th Street and 50-100 sounded like a lot, but if it was scattered throughout a day, he was not sure how noticeable it would be. He was not going to declare his vote yet, but thought there were pros and cons on both sides.
Commissioner Rundle asked if all of the surrounding areas were developed at least to the density they were zoned or were any of them significantly lower in density than zoning would allow.
Stogsdill said she did not think staff actually did that study.
Miller said the lots to the west of Haskell were larger, but staff could check on that.
Commissioner Schauner asked how many square feet were in .15 acre.
Stogsdill said 6,734 square feet.
Commissioner Rundle asked if this project was comparable to the density of the Woods project.
Stogsdill said she could not answer that question in respect to the Hanscom/Tappan. She said Hanscom/Tappan had some lots that were at a minimum of 4000 square feet, but she thought the Woods had some that were close to 4000 square feet, but more of the lots might have been 5000 square feet.
Belot said this project was very similar to Hanscom/Tappan project. There was one 4000 square foot lot and that was on the western border, so it was not of the similar type. The lots in this area were 5000-6000 square feet each. He said it was all zoned RS-2 and it disturbed him that the Commission, especially Commissioner Schauner, did like it because it was zoned RS-2 everywhere.
Commissioner Schauner said it was not all zoned RS-2.
Belot said if he was going to take what the Commission set as a goal and encourage infill development before they went out for urban sprawl, which he took to heart, it would be tough to develop infill. He did not have any control over whoever sold that 22 foot section out of that property 30 years ago. He was left with what was left over, which was why he has to ask for the waivers, not because he was trying to be greedy or could not design around it, but because the 22 feet made the difference in being able to have a 35 foot set back or a 30 foot setback. He did not have anything to do with that, but he was just taking infill properties, which the City Commission said they wanted developed, and to try to come up with something that was pleasant to the market, to the people who wanted to buy it, and to the surrounding neighbors. He was not saturating the area with more density, but it was tough to do those projects because they had to try and fit so many parameters in that had already been determined by other people over history. He wished the City Commission had some sensitivity to what he had to go through to do this kind of development. It would be much easier to go out west where he had a clean sheet of paper and had four outside boundaries and he could pretty much work within those boundaries and do whatever he needed to do. He did not have that option here.
Commissioner Schauner said if it was easy, someone would have done it before.
Commissioner Rundle asked if Belot was comfortable in stating the price ranges of those houses.
Belot said it would be around $150,000 to $160,000.
Commissioner Rundle said he was very guarded on this project. He said he was willing to proceed, but he was hoping that traffic impacts were not going to be as bad as people were predicting. He said they would certainly want to monitor that traffic and have feedback on how things were working out. He said they were trying to do as much infill as possible. He hoped the project was a contribution to the affordable housing needs that had been identified. He said he was not sure that price range was identified.
Commissioner Highberger said he was leaning that way too. He said it went back to their conversation on local streets and if this area had been designed with more of a master plan of how the future grade was going to work, they would not be in this boat of trying to build a 500 foot long cul-de-sac. Given everything that was discussed, he was willing to support the project. There were things he wished could be different, but as Belot pointed out, infill was difficult. He wanted to make sure that as many of the trees along the side were saved and was made clear in the plans and he certainly did not support fencing the neighborhood off and asked that that condition be removed.
Commissioner Hack said the fencing condition would go against everything they were trying to do with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Schauner said he wanted to express his disappointment the Commission was going to approve a project based on a wing and a prayer or a hope. He did not think it was a sound way to develop public policy or approve developments that would impact their neighbors. Once a development was built, the people who lived there would get to live with it and enjoy it, good, bad, or indifferent. He thought they should have a higher standard than just reluctantly approving and hoping it worked. He said infill was difficult, but so was living next to a failed project. He saw that 6.22 was the maximum for RS-2 and this was .34 units per acre more than the maximum. They always stretch the maximum. He said maybe they should have an approximate number and he asked why they had a precision number of 6.22 if it was not followed. He said it was frustrating.
Commissioner Rundle asked how many units would be lost if it were brought down to that level.
Commissioner Hack said three, which would make each one of them more expensive.
Schauner said maybe.
Commissioner Hack said no, it was not maybe. She said that was how the economics worked.
Schauner said the market would determine what those homes would sell for. He said he did not sell real estate, but the market did work.
Mayor Amyx said he thought he was hearing from Commissioner Schauner the question of question about infill development and whether or not they were going to have it. Some of those places were so hard to build, that they would need some kind of return to at least make it come up because of the process someone had to go through took so long. If this could not work, they would need to go to a grid pattern of a street, put in 8 buildings, and that was what it would be. He said if that was what they wanted it to be, they should lay the rules now.
Commissioner Schauner said part of his frustration was that he did not know what the rules were because they seemed to change.
Mayor Amyx said they were approving a planned residential development.
Commissioner Schauner said he realized they were calling it something different, but they were still giving it more density than what the typical development in that area permits and what RS-2 permits. He was frustrated by their changing the rules.
Mayor Amyx said under PRD, did they bend the rules.
Commissioner Schauner said obviously the City Commission could.
Commissioner Rundle said it was not that he had a weak hope that this project was going to work out. He said there was a difference of what people were predicting would come out of this project, but he was comfortable the developer had addressed the concerns of the neighbors and the impacts would be tolerable. He said there were other examples of this type of infill development that had been successful and it was definitely part of the City Commission’s proposal to try and curb rural sprawl.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-05-04-06) for Prairie Wind Single Family Homes, a proposed planned residential development containing approximately 3.04 acres and proposes 17 single-family detached homes, property is generally described as being located at 2620 Haskell Avenue, with the elimination of the condition of providing a fence along the perimeter of the property, subject to the following revised conditions:
1. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to:
a. include a statement as to the substance of the covenants pertaining to the maintenance of common areas and grants of easements or other restrictions to be imposed upon the use of the land; buildings and structures, including proposed easements or grants for public utilities;
b. provide a note that occupancy will occur after the project is completed, or if the homes are to be occupied as they are completed that all public improvements and site improvements must be complete before occupancy may occur;
c. list the measures to be used during construction for protection of existing trees proposed to be preserved on the site;
d. revise General Note No. 10 on the plan to include ‘maintenance of common drives’ as a responsibility of the Homeowner’s Association;
e. relocate the common open space from the access way to an acceptable location in the interior of the site; revise the amount of common open space in the General Site Summary, if necessary.
f. show the required ‘Fire Lane’ and ‘No Parking’ signage for a distance of 20’ on both sides of the private access drives at the west end of Ryan Court;
a. designate responsibility for regulating playtime for the basketball court in the northwest corner and other common play areas with the Neighborhood Association and covenants.
b. show the right-of-way dimension for Haskell Avenue
c. show dimensions of individual easements separately; remove any references to combined right-of-way and utility easement.
d. note that the uses in this PRD are restricted to single-family detached units.
e. note that the existing water well will be plugged to Kansas Standards;
f. provide correct legal description by replacing reference to 88 deg, with 89 deg;
g. remove utility easement from detention basin;
h. correct the reference in the Landscaping section to read ‘Master Street Tree Plan that will be filed with the Final Plat, rather than ‘has been filed’;
o provide sidewalks along both sides of Ryan Court.
2. Approval of the preserved tree list and protection measures to be employed during construction by the City Landscaping Supervisor; and
3. Revisions to the grading plan, submitted and approved by City Stormwater Engineer, to:
a. define the drainage area along the south edge of the property so it flows into the area inlet.
b. define the drainage along the east edge of property so it flows into the detention area; and
c. overflow from the detention area must flow into
Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (12)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-05-12-06) a tract of land approximately 3.04 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District) to PRD-1 (Planned Residential District) and, directed staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried.