PC Minutes 6/28/06

ITEM NO. 11A :        RS-2 TO PRD-1; 3.04 ACRES; 2620 HASKELL AVENUE (MKM)

Z-05-12-06:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 3.04 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.  Submitted by Allen Belot, applicant, for Thervald & Elaine M. Holmes, property owners of record. 

PC Minutes 6/28/06

ITEM NO. 11B :        PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PRAIRIE WIND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES; 2620 HASKELL AVENUE (MKM)

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.  Submitted by Allen Belot, applicant, for Thervald & Elaine M. Holmes, property owners of record. 

Items 11A & 11B were discussed simultaneously.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Miller introduced the items, a rezoning and preliminary development plan to accommodate a residential development with 17 single-family homes.  She noted that the Lesser Change table was applied to a previous RM-D rezoning request to approve RS-2 zoning, which was deemed to be more compatible with the surrounding area.  Tonight’s request was for PRD-1 zoning with a net density of 6.651 dwelling units per acre - slightly higher than the density allowed by RS-2 (6.22 dupa).

Staff recommended a condition restricting development to single-family detached homes, recognizing continued neighborhood concerns about traffic, building type and density.  Staff also recommended conditioning the submittal (with the final development plan) of a tree conservation plan to retain as many existing mature trees as possible.

Ms. Miller explained that the common open space areas on the north and south access drives would need to be relocated to a more suitable location.

Three waivers would be needed to allow the proposed development:

• Allow a PUD without direct access to a major thoroughfare/collector
• Reduce the peripheral boundary from 35 to 25 feet on the northern property line
• Reduce the peripheral boundary from 35 ft to 30 ft for a portion of the southern border.

Staff showed pictures representing the overall character of the neighborhood.  Ms. Miller explained that the residents of this development would own their house and the land below it, but the Homeowners Association would hold all surrounding land beginning immediately outside the building footprint.

Two communications were referenced, the first a letter of opposition from the League of Women Voters voicing concerns about a PUD application being submitted “between codes”.  The League asked that the review be conducted according to the current (old) code.  The letter also outlined some concerns about open space that would presumably be addressed with plan revisions.

The second communication was a petition signed by over 60 area residents that asked that the existing RS-2 zoning for the subject area be retained.

Ms. Miller said City’s Stormwater Engineer had reviewed the plan and the drainage study, returning an opinion that the development’s drainage elements had adequate stormwater capacity.  Conditions were recommended stating that stormwater runoff must be directed to the street, not onto neighboring properties and the drainage area better defined along the South and East property borders.

Other elements were discussed:

• The proposed detention basin (not retention) was designed to disperse water within 24-48 hours following a heavy rainfall, so in Staff’s opinion the basin would not significantly increase mosquito levels in the area.
• The applicant proposed to fully finance street improvements, removing the benefit district that would potentially require shared funding from other area property owners.
• The Fire & Medical Department approved the proposed street layout and design, provided adequate signage was placed to prevent parking in the designated fire lane.
• The applicant stated no opposition to relocating open space as described by Staff.
• Privacy fencing was being considered per public comment, but would potentially disturb the in-fill intent of blending with existing surrounding development

Staff recommended approval of both items, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Report.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Alan Belot was present to speak on behalf of the applicant, but asked to reserve his comments until after the public hearing.

It was clarified with the applicant that with RS-2 zoning the net density, after considering right-of-way and easements, would allow about 3-4 homes to be built on this subject property.  Planned unit developments allowed more flexibility and would allow a higher net density as proposed here.

PUBLIC HEARING

Debbie Brown, referenced the letter sent to her by the applicant that said the development would be similar to Oliver Court at 15^th & Haskell.  Ms. Brown said Oliver Court was not as compactly developed as The Woods at 19^th Street, and asked how this proposal compared to The Woods.  She said The Woods looked nice on the outside, but internally was quite dense, with not much greenspace and little off street parking

Ms. Brown said area realtors had told her the highest residential demand at the moment was for homes with family yards.  She said this kind of property was hard to find as developers tried to maximize their profits by building smaller homes with smaller yards.

Ms. Brown asked who would pay the taxes and insurance for the lot area controlled by the Homeowner’s Association.

Ms. Schenze, 2512 Alison, stated support for RS-2 zoning, saying the neighborhood was developed with single-family homes and they liked it that way.  She cited concerns about emergency access, close-set housing, and child safety, asking the Commission to “please keep my interests at heart.”  Hands were raised to show support for the speaker’s comments.

Michelle Rutlegde, 1109 E 26^th Street, quoted articles Journal World that said the typical blue collar working family would need housing of $100,000 or less or a monthly rent of no more than $450.  Another article stated that the City wanted to encourage more housing developments to meet this demand.  She did not see how this development could provide adequate family space for those prices.

Ms. Rutledge asked how this development would address the issue of pedestrian access and dual sidewalks, which were a high priority in the new code.

Mike Ott, Prairie Park neighborhood resident, asked how stormwater would get from the proposed detention pond to the street without cutting through private yards.  He also supported the idea of lower density to allow for better access design.

Marcella Krones, 1008 E 26^th Street, said her property was prone to flooding and asked if there could be a berm constructed between the development and the residential areas.  She also supported RS-2 zoning, saying there was not enough room for the proposed number of houses.  Hands were raised to show support for the speaker’s comments.

Brad Brown, 1104 E 26^th Street, said he was denied for a variance in 2005 on the grounds that his hardship was based solely on financial grounds (increased property value).  He asked how this situation was different, when the developer was only trying to make as much profit a possible by building more houses.  He said the developer knew what zoning was in place when he bought the land, and it was his mistake if he could not develop it or sell it based on the existing approved density.

Carmen Marsico, 2528 Allison, said the detention pond shown on the plan would not adequately handle the area’s flooding conditions.  He asked how high the water would get before it began to disperse and suggested a fence around the pond for child safety.

Dorien Whitte, 2600 Haskell Avenue, said fencing the development was in the best interest for the safety of his family and day care business, particularly when construction was underway.   

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Belot presented the letter sent by the applicant to adjacent property owners and to any member of the public who spoke at the public hearing in November 2005.  This letter invited discussion and asked people to contact the applicant with questions and concerns.  Mr. Belot said it was unfortunate that no one had responded to this invitation, since many of the public’s questions could have been answered before this meeting.  He explained he had intentionally limited comparison to other developments to those he had been involved with. 

Mr. Belot addressed several issues raised by the public:

• This development tried to combine drives and provide more off-street parking than The Woods.
• There would be no “specials” accruing to impact the neighbors.
• Emergency access was approved by the Fire & Medical department and the applicant was willing to provide No Parking signs as requested for the fire lane.
• Proposed setbacks are identical to those required in RS-2 zoning.
• The plan proposes only single-family detached homes, no townhomes.
• The original application was made in January 2006, making it appropriate to make consideration under the “old code”.
• The term “affordable housing” was purposely avoided in this application in deference to previous Commission comments about the vagueness of this term.

Mr. Belot provided information about how the detention pond and drainage area would be designed and graded to meet drainage requirements and potentially improve flooding conditions in the area.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

There was discussion about how many homes could be built on the site with RS-2 zoning, regardless of financial feasibility.  Mr. Belot responded to questioning that the price point of the proposed homes would be about $158,000, similar to homes that were selling at 15^th & Haskell.

Mr. Belot responded to Commission questions:

• The cul-de-sac was under the regulatory maximum length.
• The street layout was designed according to Code.  The applicant would like to take access to Haskell if it was permitted, but this would require a variance to allow a local street to intersect with an arterial.
• The current code did not require dual sidewalks, but the applicant would be willing to provide these if the Commission deemed it necessary.
• The “extra quality” supplied by this PUD was the provision of infill development and a scattered design for open space not usually seen in conventional zoning developments.

Jennings spoke about factors that drove up the cost of housing, saying it was not just the developers’ wish to increase profits.  Housing costs were also impacted by land costs and fees imposed by the City.  He said everyone agreed on the need for affordable housing, but also kept insisting on lower density for infill development.  Fewer houses meant each house cost more and it was unfair to put the whole problem on the developer’s plate.  Burress added that financial considerations were not within the Planning Commission’s purview.

Eichhorn said neighborhood character was, in his opinion, the most important factor for the Commission to consider.  He said he generally supported infill development, but he understood the neighbor’s concerns about what the development would look like and how it would fit in the area.  He said he would support keeping lot sizes based on RS-2 zoning, but pointed out that meant the applicant would not be able to improve existing flood conditions as now proposed.

Finkeldei noted that the directly adjacent residential areas were RS-1 and RS-2, but the surrounding neighborhood had a wider range of densities and character.  Higher densities similar to the proposal existed not far away from the subject area.

Jennings commented that Homeowner’s Associations often encouraged better property maintenance, safety and solidarity.   He added that some home buyers might appreciate the amenities and ownership arrangement being proposed here – the ability to own property without maintenance hassles (yard, sidewalk etc).

Mr. Belot responded to questioning that a fence could be built, but he asked if it could be conditioned for construction at the end of the project so it would not have to be torn up and relocated depending on utility placement. 

Burress referenced the idea that land could become unusable if it were restricted to a density so low it became financially unfeasible to develop based on the land purchase price.  He said eventually “this land will become very cheap and then something can be built there.”

Burress expressed concern that the proposed fencing would encourage separation of the subject area from the overall neighborhood, which was against one intent of infill development. 

Krebs spoke about the Commission’s tendency to encourage more compact infill development to curb rural spread.

Haase referenced the Clinton Park Patio Homes development, saying it was a vibrant example of the proposed housing model that met many of the goals the community was seeking.  He understood the neighborhood’s concerns, but felt these were adequately addressed by the applicant.  He added that drainage was a big concern in this area and would be improved by this development.

ACTION TAKEN

Item 11A

Motioned by Burress, seconded by Haase to approve the rezoning of approximately 3.04 acres from RS-2 to PRD-1 at 2602 Haskell Avenue and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:

1. Uses restricted to ‘detached single-family dwellings’;
2. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance; and
3. Approval of a preliminary development plan prior to the publication of a rezoning ordinance.

Motion carried 7-1, with Burress, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Harris, Jennings and Krebs voting in favor.  Eichhorn voted in opposition.

Item 11B

Motioned by Burress, seconded by Haase to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for Prairie Wind Single Family Homes, and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and 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;

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;

g. designate responsibility for regulating playtime for the basketball court in the northwest corner and other common play areas with the Neighborhood Association and covenants.

h. show the right-of-way dimension for Haskell Avenue

i. show dimensions of individual easements separately; remove any references to combined right-of-way and utility easement.

j. note that the uses in this PRD are restricted to single-family detached units.

k. note that the existing water well will be plugged to Kansas Standards;

l. provide correct legal description by replacing reference to 88 deg, with 89 deg;

m. remove utility easement from detention basin;

n. 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 a fence along the perimeter of the property, with a note that it is to be built at the final phase of construction; and

p. 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 the street and not directly into the backyard of the property to the east of the detention area.

Motion carried 6-2, with Burress, Erickson, Finkeldei, Haase, Jennings and Krebs voting in favor.  Eichhorn and Harris voted in opposition.